MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session March 16, 1995 The Senate Committee on Transportation is called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:30 p.m., on Thursday, March 16, 1995, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Raymond C. Shaffer Senator O. C. Lee COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Kathy Augustine Senator Mike McGinness STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst Diane Rea, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) Danny Thompson, Nevada State American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (NV ST AFL-CIO) Jack Jeffery, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council Patty Smith, Nevada Auto Body Donna Wadey-Howell, Acting Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) Larry Stout, Assistant Chief, Bureau of Enforcement, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) Senator O'Donnell stated that the committee would hear Senate Bill (S.B.) 231 out of order so that Senator Augustine could testify first. SENATE BILL 231: Revises provisions relating to registration of motor vehicles in Nevada. (BDR 43-41) Senator Augustine thanked the committee for moving her to the top of the docket but stated that she is expecting Mr. Sparks to join her. She read her testimony (Exhibit C). She then asked for questions from the committee. Senator O'Donnell stated that he has some concerns about the part where people are being subpoenaed requiring them to go to court. Senator Augustine stated that is a power already given to the Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV&PS). There would not be an additional cost to DMV&PS. Senator O'Donnell replied that he is worried about DMV&PS having the power to subpoena people that they notice are driving without state plates. He asked about the tourists. Senator Augustine stated that this deals with people who have gone to DMV&PS and gotten their driver's license and have not registered their vehicle. Nevada has too many people who are getting their driver's license and not registering their automobiles. Senator O'Donnell asked if any consideration has been given to the idea of an incentive; or a period of time in which someone has to comply? Senator Augustine said that the bill actually shortens the registration period from 45 days to 30 days. Senator Porter asked if the goal is to get more vehicles registered that are not registered now? Senator Augustine said, "Exactly." Senator Porter asked if the 15 days are going to make that much difference or would that cause more of a problem? Senator Augustine replied that is the grace period to get the vehicle registered. That really has nothing to do with enforcement. Most people coming into the state are getting their driver's license and not registering their vehicles. Senator Porter asked if she is proposing to close that gap with the subpoena? He asked how DMV&PS would know who they are? Senator Augustine stated that they could be readily identified by those who have obtained their driver's license, but not registered their vehicles. Senator Porter asked, "Currently, what happens to that person? Unless a neighbor says something or somebody driving by that we do not know?" Senator Augustine replied, "Nothing." There is a number in Clark County, I'm not sure about Washoe, that a person can call if they see a car, that is always on the street or always in a driveway, that has an out-of-state plate and is known to be a permanent resident. She said she is not sure about Washoe County. The law enforcement officials will go out and they can currently ticket the vehicle. Senator Porter asked if we are able to do this? Senator Augustine replied, "Yes." Senator Porter asked if currently they are giving subpoena's in some circumstances? Senator Augustine replied: Yes. This bill is identical to ... all the parties came together in the Sixty-seventh Session. It is on A.B. 200 of the Sixty-seventh Session, and we has some differences of opinion; and all the parties came together and this is the result of that bill. The highway patrol has asked for a dedicated task force of six highway patrolmen. All they would be doing is enforcing vehicle registration. It put a fiscal note on the bill. That is the bill that came out of the Assembly Committee on Transportation, but died in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee because of the fiscal note with the additional highway patrol troopers. We have deleted that this time. ASSEMBLY BILL 200 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Makes various changes regarding enforcement of provision requiring registration of motor vehicles in this state. (BDR 43-1481) Senator Porter stated, "To collect the fees that are due and payable to the state would offset the expense factor. There must be hundreds of thousands of dollars ... millions not being collected." Senator Augustine replied, "On top of the small registration, we have the privilege tax; and now in the larger counties we have the special privilege tax, which is the money going into the Highway Fund." Senator Neal asked if this bill would give the subpoena powers to the motor vehicle department to require people to attend a hearing? Senator Augustine stated that the motor vehicle department already has those powers. Senator Neal asked in what relationship do they have these powers? Senator Augustine replied that she is not sure of everything the motor vehicles department used it for. Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) stated that he does not believe the Registration Division has any additional subpoena powers other than what the bill would provide. Mr. Sparks continued, "The department in general, I believe, can subpoena witnesses for administrative hearings that the department could convene." Senator Neal stated, "My question is, how do we find these individuals?" Senator Augustine replied, "Because they have obtained their Nevada driver's license, but they have not registered their vehicles. They get their driver's license because they have to. They need it for identification purposes." Senator Neal stated that he could get a driver's license without having a car. Senator Augustine replied, "At the time you get the driver's license, you are asked if you also have a vehicle to register in the State of Nevada." Senator Neal asked if that is what triggered this? If the answer is "no" would he be charged with perjury? Senator Augustine replied, "No, it just puts a little teeth into getting you to come in and register that car." Senator Neal asked, "If I said I have a vehicle, but it is not registered, do I have a grace period to come in and register?" Senator Augustine replied, "You have 30 days." Mr. Sparks stated: The department receives a number of complaints directly from citizens; complaining about other people who have failed to register their vehicles in the state. The only thing DMV&PS is able to do is refer that complaint to the highway patrol. If an officer has time they will go by and leave a warning notice on the car. They are constrained, in terms of taking any enforcement action because they have to observe the vehicle being operated to be able to cite somebody. There is a void in terms of being able to enforce the registration requirement with any degree of certainty. DMV&PS could use this process in those situations where we obtained a complaint. We would have to do some kind of physical verification that the car is at the address, but with some type of probable cause, we could ask the person to appear and explain why the vehicle is not registered; and if there is some reason that it is not required to be registered. We could provide better enforcement through a number of means with this proposal. Senator Neal asked, "How is the highway patrol able to take the tags off of a car?" Mr. Sparks replied that if a highway patrol officer observes a vehicle being operated with improper registration, they can cause the vehicle to be impounded. When they do that they will remove the license plates if they are not properly registered to the car. Senator Neal asked if they see a vehicle that is not registered in the state for more than 30 days could, the highway patrol impound the vehicle under the present law? Senator Augustine replied that it is 45 days at this time. This bill would lower that to 30 days. Senator Neal asked if Nevada is going to catch more people in 30 days than we would in 45 days? He asked why we would need this change? Mr. Sparks replied that for any law enforcement to take that action, they must see the vehicle being operated. When the complaint comes in from a neighbor, the law enforcement officials do not have the resources to park across the street and wait for someone to drive that vehicle. This would provide a mechanism for enforcement without tying up that law enforcement official. He stated that under the existing laws, once the 45 days have expired and the resident has failed to obtain registration, a law enforcement official could impound the vehicle. Senator Neal asked if the committee should vote the bill out, would Senator Augustine mind if they put a future effective date on the bill? If not, the bill would go into effect in either October or July. If a date is put on for the bill to be effective, the people can be notified of that. Senator Augustine stated that the bill if passed is to take effect October 1, 1995. Senator Neal stated that he is referring to July of 1996. Senator Augustine stated that she feels from now until October is a lot of grace period. Senator Neal stated that there are a lot of people moving into Nevada. Senator Augustine replied that they only have 45 days now to get their registration. Senator Neal stated that the bill would decrease that by 15 days and he feels they should be given notice of that difference. Senator Augustine stated that when they move into the state they are given notice that this registration is required. She added that the State of Nevada is losing millions of dollars every year from these people who are not registering their cars. Senator O'Donnell stated that the reason people are not registering their cars is because the states around Nevada have a much lower registration fee; plus insurance premiums are a lot less in surrounding states. Senator Neal stated that Nevada is a tourist state and asked what would happen if someone pointed out a person who is just visiting? This could damage our tourist industry. Senator Augustine pointed out that this bill does not effect the tourist. The bill refers to the person who comes to Nevada, gets a driver's license and does not register their car. Danny Thompson, Nevada State American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), stated that his organization supports this bill because out-of-state workers come to Nevada and never register their cars. They collect Nevada wages, but go home for the weekends and never spend any money here. Many of these cars are not insured in Nevada and the state has a mandatory insurance law. This would help eliminate that problem. Mr. Thompson continued with two reasons for processing this bill. Number one, this would stop people from driving without insurance; and number two, this would generate some revenue for the state. Jack Jeffery, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, stated that this is a problem on construction sites with projects that run from 6 months to a longer period of time. The problem has been enforcement. The highway patrol cannot take the time to check a car and then go looking for it in 45 days. He said he resents the fact that a construction worker comes here from out-of- state, contributes nothing to the economy, but collects our state pay. Senator Shaffer asked if the people who come to Nevada do not usually go home for the weekends and usually do not even get a Nevada driver's license? Mr. Sparks stated that many years ago people were required to buy a Nevada driver's license when they were gainfully employed here, and it was easy to enforce in those days. Now, it has to be proven that a person has been here for 45 days. Senator O'Donnell stated that there is an incentive to register a car out-of-state. The insurance and registration fees. Having out-of-state plates puts a person in violation. This is an enforcement problem. These people are causing Nevadans to pay dearly for the services that the funds support. He stated that he does not know if Nevada should go directly to subpoenaing because of the issue of tourists. He questioned the possibility of some kind of time where people could conform. Mr. Sparks stated that has been attempted before. In addition to the flat registration fee; for 2 years, there is no sales tax on the vehicle. People will register their vehicles in Oregon improperly to avoid the sales tax, and that involves the Department of Taxation. They have attempted to do an amnesty to allow people who have improperly registered their vehicles in another state to register them in Nevada and avoid the penalties that would be involved in an enforcement action. Those have not been successful. He said that the department gets a lot of calls from people who have neighbors that have not registered their vehicles. One of the most common problems is the person who moves here with time left on their plates. When they register in Nevada they will not get credit for that time, so they are going to try and drive that car until those plates expire. Senator O'Donnell asked if Nevada used to give that credit? He suggested that could be a solution to that problem. Mr. Sparks replied that would be a loss to the Highway Fund, in terms of a loss of revenue. Senator Porter asked for an estimation of how many people do not register their vehicles. Mr. Sparks estimated that would be in the 15 percent range which would be a loss of millions to the state and local governments. Senator Porter stated that DMV&PS is trying to get a new data processing system. He asked if this system would pick up on those offenders? Mr. Sparks stated that they are currently two separate data bases and they do not interface. They would like to link the drivers' license files and the registration files. An additional element needs to be the individual's declaration that he has a vehicle. DMV&PS would not know if the individual has a vehicle registered in another state, because that would not be in the data base. Senator Shaffer asked about a bounty hunter. Mr. Sparks replied that Florida has a program where senior citizens put warning notices on vehicles. Senator Neal asked why the DMV&PS did not bring this bill forward. Mr. Sparks stated that DMV&PS has worked with Senator Augustine during the Sixty-seventh Session and they are aware that she would be bringing it forward again during the Sixty-eighth Session. He said that he has no knowledge of the department proposing a bill draft request (BDR) to address this issue. Senator Neal stated that the bill talks about the "divisions of the department shall exchange among the divisions any information." He asked what divisions these are? Mr. Sparks replied that would be the drivers' license and registration divisions. Senator Neal asked if they are not under the same management? Why would there be a law to make them exchange information? Mr. Sparks replied that it would not be necessary, but it conveys the clear legislative intent that this be done. Senator Neal asked if the application for insurance, the renewal and the correction of drivers' licenses was supposed to trigger this? Mr. Sparks stated that is correct. Senator Neal said that, as he understands, right now the two departments computers could not talk to each other. He asked if this means that DMV&PS needs an appropriation to reorganize the system to be able to get this information. Mr. Sparks stated that the program could be implemented with a manual system initially. The DMV&PS is requesting funds for a Business Process Reengineering Study and additional funds for upgrades in the data processing resources. That is a separate issue. Senator Neal asked how many vehicles are presently registered in the State of Nevada? Mr. Sparks replied that it is about 1.2 to 1.3 million. Senator Neal asked if they would have to look at those each year? Mr. Sparks replied that they would primarily look at the new driver's license that is issued. The insurance premiums flag the people that have not registered their vehicles. The problem has been enforcement. Senator Neal stated section 3 subsection 1 of the bill reads, "The department may issue a subpoena to any person the department reasonably believes holds a Nevada driver's license and owns or continuously uses in this state a motor vehicle which is not registered in this state, to compel his attendance at an administrative hearing to show cause why he has not registered the motor vehicle in this state." He asked if this is dealing with a violation of the law? Mr. Sparks stated that at this point there would be a situation where the state has probable cause to believe there is a violation. Senator Neal stated that in Nevada's system when there is probable cause for a violation, there must be some type of a notice given. Then the person has to go to a hearing. The bill just says, "Here is a subpoena, show up." Someone has to be there to cite you for that. Mr. Sparks stated that an individual may receive a summons if there is probable cause to believe that they have violated the law and that is their notice. Senator Neal stated that the judicial would issue a summons for a person to appear as a witness, but in our system a person must have a charge before that person goes to a hearing. Nevada issues a warning to that individual and then he has to appear and "show cause." Mr. Sparks replied that the subpoena for a person to appear at the hearing is an attempt to provide for the "due process" for that individual. There is no action taken against them at that point. The individual is being asked to produce some evidence or explanation as to why they should not be found in violation of the statute. If the person is found in violation of the registration requirements, then there would be some fine attached after the hearing is conducted. The person has the opportunity for judicial review. Senator Washington stated that the three basic problems are: one, lower registration in other states; second being lower insurance premiums and the third is the time factor that it takes to register a car. He asked if it would not be more appropriate to give incentives for people to come in and register their car? Senator Augustine replied that the state has done that before and it did not make any difference. During the Sixty-seventh Session, both the Assembly and the Senate took out a credit for a new resident getting their driver's license. Senator Washington asked if this could compel somebody to register their car? Senator Augustine replied that the idea of the bill is to enforce the registration. Right now it is not being enforced. The law is on the books but there is about 15 percent who are not registered and probably not insured. Senator Washington asked how they would enforce it? How would the DMV&PS get the information to issue the subpoena? Mr. Sparks replied that the information would come from complaints from the citizens and the drivers' license information for the new residents. At the 30-day interval, DMV&PS could check the data base and see if the vehicle has been registered. Senator Augustine stated that if an individual does not register their vehicle currently, they could be imprisoned for up to 6 months and fined up to $1,000. Senator Porter said that in looking over the minutes from the Sixty-seventh Session, on March 7th, testimony is given by Major White stating that there have been 425 citations through April 1993 for nonresidence registrations. Major White has explained that there have been 712 citations issued in 1992. Senator Porter asked if those citations has been issued because the individual has been stopped for some other reason and cited for the violation? Senator Augustine replied that is what happened most often. That is why one portion of the bill has been changed so that "a vehicle may be cited for a violation of this section; regardless of whether it is in operation or is parked on a highway, in a public parking lot or on private property which is open to the public." Senator Porter asked if the highway patrol or law enforcement would use the same methods as what has been suggested today to find that individual? Senator Augustine replied that this bill is a duplicate of the amended version of A.B. 200 of the Sixty-seventh Session, except it excludes the dedicated task force of the highway patrol because of the fiscal note. Also included are some amendments that are proposed by Assemblyman Perkins, who is a police officer for the City of Henderson. The amendments came from the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Transportation. Senator Porter asked if the individuals eventually pay their registration or are there some that never pay? Mr. Sparks stated that there are some who do eventually register their vehicles. The state does not recoup the lost registration fees. The fee is charged from the day that a person comes in to register the vehicles. Senator Porter stated that the constable service could be involved in the serving the subpoenas or doing some of the inspections? Senator Augustine stated that Mr. Sparks has said that right now the highway patrol special services is used to issue subpoenas. Patty Smith, Nevada Auto Body, stated that she would like to give an example of how she has handled a situation that would be affected by this bill. She said she has handled the relocation of Canadian companies to Reno, Nevada; involved in mining. These people came from Idaho, Arizona, Washington, California and Canada. She stated that she informed these individuals that they had 2 weeks to change their licenses. They could stretch it to 45 days, but if they did not reregister their vehicles in the State of Nevada they would be facing a $250 fine. She said that she think that is in the Nevada handbook. Mr. Sparks stated that unfortunately the handbook does not state that. Senator O'Donnell replied that the problem could maybe be solved by the committee looking at the handbook. Mrs. Smith stated that the employer who brings in an employee from out-of-state should be notified by DMV&PS that the employees have to be informed of the penalty that could be avoided. A letter from the Board of County Commissioners, Elko, Nevada, in support of S.B. 231 (Exhibit D) is submitted for the record. Senator Washington recessed the committee for a joint committee meeting at 2:35 p.m. Senator Mike McGinness introduced the 4-H members from the White Pine County School District. Senator O'Donnell called the regular committee meeting back to order at 3:45 p.m. and stated that the committee would be hearing Senate Bill 119. SENATE BILL 119: Revises provisions relating to disclosure of odometer reading of motor vehicle and certain other information when ownership of motor vehicle is transferred. (BDR 43- 1317) Donna Wadey-Howell, Acting Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) stated that she is going to have Mr. Larry Stout, Assistant Chief, Bureau of Enforcement, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) present S.B. 119. Mr. Stout stated that the DMV&PS has a 6-minute video to present to the committee dealing with odometer fraud. The purpose in showing the video is that odometer fraud is a serious consumer project and a serious criminal enterprise in the United States. The rolling back of the odometers is an ongoing enterprise. Mr. Stout said that the bill adopts the federal statute and the code of federal regulations that address odometer fraud. The state is bound by those laws and has been enforcing them for a number of years. The area of concern is that the federal regulations provide for not having odometer statements on vehicles more than 10 years old. Senator O'Donnell asked if DMV&PS wanted to be able to enforce the federal and do away with the law that is on the books today? Today's law is not as tough as the federal law. He asked if today's law would allow people to take DMV&PS to court and say, "No, this is the Nevada law. You cannot enforce the federal law." Mrs. Howell stated that the reason behind the bill is the concern from the community that the federal regulations do not require that you have to have an odometer statement for vehicles more than 10 years old. The Nevada law has required that we have odometer statements on all vehicles. She said that there has been concern that Nevada should be consistent with the federal legislation. Mr. Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst, stated that he has a technical statement. Mr. Williams said: In reviewing this legislation I discovered that the citation is incorrect. The citation, 15USC Section 1998, is actually repealed in the last congress. Actually it is now under Title 49 of the U.S. Code. The legal division would need to draft an amendment just to correct that to refer that to the existing federal statute, which is Title 49 of the U.S. Code; and there are certain sections. Section 32701 through 32711 (Exhibit E) and that would need to be done if you choose to process the bill. Mr. Stout stated that DMV&PS believes that to be correct. Senator O'Donnell asked for any other testimony on S.B. 119. He closed the hearing on S.B. 119. Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill 172. SENATE BILL 172: Provides statutory authority for department of motor vehicles and public safety to deny, suspend or revoke license of fleet station. (BDR 40-584) Senator O'Donnell asked what is a fleet station? Mr. Stout replied that this bill is a cleanup bill in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 445 NRS 481.0481 (Exhibit F) regulating emission control. NRS 445.610 through NRS 445.670 (Exhibit G) also regulates the emission control. Mr. Stout continued: A fleet station, for example the power company in Las Vegas, has a fleet of vehicles in excess of 400. They are licensed to do emission tests on their own vehicles. They have licensed inspection technicians and their test equipment. They test and repair their own fleet of vehicles. We call that a fleet station. U.S. Post Office is another fleet station. I think the definition is 10 or more vehicles registered to the same owner. In addressing the department's ability to license, deny, suspend or revoke, we address authorized inspection stations, authorized maintenance stations in the enabling part. When it gets down to the regulation part, we have left out the term [fleet stations]. We are simply inserting the term fleet station in lines 6, 11, 14 and 17 to make continuity in the legislation. It is essentially a cleanup bill. Senator O'Donnell asked if DMV&PS is just changing the language to include fleet station; why did not the words "authorized station" do it? Mr. Stout stated that fleet station is a separate category of companies and organizations having a large number of vehicles together. They inspect and repair their own vehicles. They cannot work on any other vehicles than those in their fleet. Senator O'Donnell stated that DMV&PS wants to be able to go in and inspect the power company, etc. Senator O'Donnell asked for any other testimony on S.B. 172. With no response he stated that the bill would go to a work session in the future. Senator O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 4:02 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Diane C. Rea, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Transportation March 16, 1995 Page