MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session May 4, 1995 The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:40 p.m., on Thursday, May 4, 1995, in Room 226 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) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst Diane Rea, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Jan Needham, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association Richard Clark, Chief, Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Celester "CJ" Johnson, Nevada Division of Prisons (NDOP)/Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Major Daniel Hammack, Commander, Field Operations Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), Department of Transportation and Public Safety (DMV&PS) Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO) Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Bob Thomas, Self Robey Willis, Lobbyist, Nevada Judges Association Dan Joseph, Concerned Citizen Chad Dornsife, Lobbyist, National Motorist Association Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Keith Maki, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Juanita Cox, Citizen Lobbyist, Political Action For Public Awareness Donna Wadey-Howell, Acting Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) Daryl Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc. (NMTA) Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 50. SENATE BILL 50: Requires peace officers to receive training in cultural awareness. (BDR 43- 980) Senator O'Donnell stated that this bill is the result of an interim study headed by Senator Ernie Adler. He asked the secretary to get Senator Adler and recessed the meeting. Senator O'Donnell called the meeting to order and asked if the secretary has been able to get a hold of Senator Adler? Diane Rea, Committee Secretary, responded, "He is in his office speaking with a couple of people right now and then he has to go down to Senator Raggio's office. He asked if we would hold the bill until later today; until he can get up here." Senator O'Donnell said he thought the bill would have higher profile. Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, testified law enforcement has a vital interest in cultural training. That training is provided in basic training and in service training. He said whether the bill passes or not, law enforcement will continue to provide this training. He stated they are aggressively neutral. Richard Clark, Chief, Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), testified that his organization echos what Mr. Cooper has said about the importance and benefits of cultural awareness. He said the training really has an impact on the perception of the level of professionalism for law enforcement officers in the field. It increases the level of officer safety and decreases liability issues. He said the training consists of 6 hours on cultural awareness, 3 hours of Spanish for officers, and 1 hour on immigration law, along with many other courses. The cultural awareness alone consists of about 12 hours of training. Celester "CJ" Johnson, Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP)/Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), testified to having spent more than 30 years doing research on cultural awareness. He said that he teaches at the academy and the Department of Prisons. The basic integrity of an agency is on how an officer conducts himself with all people. Major Daniel Hammack, Commander, Field Operations Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), Department of Transportation and Public Safety (DMV&PS), testified that the division considers this an important training area. It is covered during the basic academy as well as a recent 20-hour in-service training for all employees in the division. Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO), testified he echoes everything his colleges have stated. METRO teaches 29.5 hours of training to new commissioned police officers. They have 27 hours of in-service training for all employees above the basic training, along with additional training for employees who have been promoted. These classes are given when the employee is off probation. Mr. Johnson stated that the training includes how to accept the differences of people who have a language barrier or people who have a cultural barrier. The acceptance of these differences is done through handshakes and eye contact. Showing feeling creates a universal cultural breakdown. Senator O'Donnell asked what the three cultures are that are taught? Mr. Cooper stated that they include oriental, Hispanic and African American. Mr. Clark stated that one of the foundations for the training is the extreme benefit of treating all people with dignity and respect. Senator O'Donnell asked what will happen to an officer who violated cultural or racial rules? Mr. Clark answered, the result would be an increase to a verbal conflict and then into a physical conflict and altercation. The stress, strain and liabilities will go along with that. Internal Affairs will be involved in the discipline for the incident. He said agencies will look at retraining, if this seems to be a reoccurring problem. Mr. Cooper stated that he had been in charge of Internal Affairs at METRO for 12 years. The penalties can go from counseling to requiring additional training in the area violated. Disciplinary action could be taken; depending on how serious the event is, the officer could be subject to termination. Mr. Johnson stated that NDOP is aware that they are in the people business and must set a higher standard for managing people. If an officer is given the skill to better manage people, it creates a better environment for people to live in and cuts down on violence. Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, testified this is a duplication of training. All the cities support POST and send their officers to POST for training. Mr. Grady said Barbara McKenzie had to attend another meeting, but would like to go on record saying that Reno does in-house training as well as POST training for their officers. Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County testified, the Board of Commissioners feel this is a good ideal, but their officers already receive the POST training. If additional training is required, how will this be paid for (Exhibit C)? Senator O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 50. Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill 133. SENATE BILL 133: Revises provisions governing rate of speed for operation of motor vehicle. (BDR 43- 1381) Senator O'Donnell stated that the Senate in Washington, D.C. has passed a repeal of the 55-mile-per-hour (MPH) speed limit. Senator O'Donnell introduced former Assemblyman Bob Thomas as having been instrumental in bringing the bill that is law today which allows people to drive at a speed greater than 55 MPH and pay the energy fee. The amendment (Exhibit D) to S.B. 133 is Amendment No. 390. Bob Thomas, Self, testified that the main concern of this bill pertains to the judge's discretion on the fine of $2 a mile for every mile over the speed limit. Robey Willis, Lobbyist, Nevada Judges Association, testified the existing speed limit bill is designed to make the fines as painless as possible for the tourists. He said Nevada has a great reputation with the tourists. He said his only objection is to the $40 or $50 fine. He said that raising revenue is not a good reason to change a good law. It has nothing to do with safety. People are going to drive what the highway is capable of driving. Fifty dollars is not going to slow a person down. He said he would much rather rely on the judgement of the arresting officer as to whether a person is driving safely or not. Mr. Thomas said that the bill says $4 a mile for over 55 MPH. He said there is no way to get around that when it is stated in the bill. There is nothing left to the discretion of the judge. Senator O'Donnell asked if that is "permissive or flexible," will they have a problem with that? Mr. Thomas said the judges are not going to get into whether something is good policy or not. They are concerned about the mandatory sentencing. Senator O'Donnell stated that the committee will have to raise the fee in order to be revenue neutral if the state is going to let people drive faster. Mr. Willis replied that he is only concerned with the over 70 MPH being $4 per mile. The waste of energy bill is the correct thing to do for Nevadans. Senator O'Donnell said this amendment to the bill allows a person to get a ticket for wasting energy above 70 MPH, but it will not be a moving violation unless the person fails to pay the ticket. If they fail to pay, the violation goes against their insurance record. He said that if the fine for wasting energy is paid, no points are taken away from that person and the DMV&PS is not notified of any moving violation. Senator O'Donnell stated that the design of the amendment is to be revenue neutral. If the state is going to have a $40 increase in the energy wasting fee, there is an eight-times-less chance a person will be pulled over, because the NHP will not bother with a person driving safely. Dan Joseph, Concerned Citizen, testified he believes it is his proposal that led to this legislation being written. He said his original intent was to remove the speed limit. No speed limit, no speeding ticket. No speeding ticket, no insurance rate hike. That is the ongoing punishment. He said this money goes to the schools and that makes it hard to do away with. The intent is to create a situation where there is no money taken away, except from the insurance companies in boosting rates. He said that by changing revenues, the people who were originally considered to be wasting energy are being treated unfairly. He stated leave the wasting energy fine where it is, and from 71 MPH and up, let the penalties start at $40 or $50 in fines. It still does not get reported unless the fine is not paid. Senator O'Donnell said the committee will have to go back to the budget and see what the revenue impact will be to the NHP, and whether the state will have to take General Fund dollars out to fund the NHP. If the fee is increased from $5 to $40, one person would create the same amount of revenue now coming from eight people in violation. Mr. Joseph asked what will happen if the NHP pulls over the same amount of people they are now pulling over? Senator O'Donnell stated that there will be an increase in the Highway Fund. Mr. Joseph asked what the NHP did for money prior to 1973? Nevada was not able to enforce speed limits prior to then. Mr. Hammack responded the NHP gains no direct revenue from fine revenue. It goes to the public school systems. There is a court assessment that NHP gets a portion of for law enforcement training. Fine revenue is not a base source for the NHP to generate revenue. Mr. Hammack stated that safety is an issue with NHP. The current system is equitable and works for most of the general public. Chad Dornsife, National Motorist Association, testified he objects to the higher fines. Increasing the fines to $40 for below 70 MPH will not create much revenue. He said he is in favor of leaving the fine where it is now. Having a higher fine for above 70 MPH, he does not object to. He said that if the NHP focuses on impeding traffic, improper lane changes, turn signal usage; those fines will go up proportionately to mitigate some of the loss in revenue. Having a fine for above 70 MPH, but not being a speeding ticket; he said he will be in favor of. Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified that the bill seems to be creating a motivation for more traffic stops, by these fines. If safety is not the issue, the fine is nothing more than a revenue raiser. Policeman have no right to stop a person just to raise money. If the purpose is to deter travel at higher speeds, which is a safety issue; Nevada is better off having a speed limit so people know what is expected of them and why. Mr. Dornsife said that the bill is a compromise, because there is a national 55-MPH speed limit. If Nevada has no speed limit, we lose our highway funds; or there is a 55-MPH posted limit and it is an environmental fine. Mr. Joseph responded that Nevada will not lose any Federal Highway Funds for lack of enforcement of the 55 MPH limit. The Supreme Court decision of 1992 assures us of that. The government will have to give the state the money. Mr. Dornsife stated that the State of Nevada lost their case against the federal government when we went to 70 MPH. The federal government cited a South Dakota case which said the federal government, through its monetary fiscal policies, can withhold funds. There is some dollar amount from zero to 100 percent that the courts will uphold. Mr. Joseph said this state is empowered to open an escrow account, in the event that happens, and withhold all of our money going to the federal government until they release the withheld funds to the state. Mr. Joseph said that the main issue is not the fines, it is the ongoing fine that the insurance company will give a person. Senator Washington explained that based on the testimonies during the last hearing from the county law enforcement and county officials, who said they will lose revenue if the 70 MPH top end is taken off, the driver driving at a higher rate of speed will be held responsible for the excess speed and they came up with the $4 fine. Traveling over 70 MPH is where the counties will get their revenue. He said the issues are the revenue for the counties and the DMV&PS reporting. If a person is driving over 70 MPH, it is a fuel energy ticket. It is not reported to DMV&PS or the insurance company, if the fine is paid. The reckless driver is the one the bill is aimed at. He said the key is to not get a person twice for a single violation. Keith Maki, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), stated the department's position is to maintain the status quo. The Code of Federal Register 23, part 1260, dated October 23, 1993, states that the Secretary of Transportation shall withhold all federal funds for any state that does not have and enforce the national 55 MPH speed limit. He said the law is in effect and was reconfirmed a year-or-so after the Supreme Count decision. The sanctioning procedure is the only portion of the law that is not being enforced. That is on hold by Congressional decree at this time. Juanita Cox, Citizen Lobbyist, Political Action For Public Awareness, testified that she does not mind if the bill says that if a person goes over 70 MPH they have to pay the $50 plus the extra $2. She said what she minds is the 55 to 70 MPH; that should be left a $5 ticket. Senator O'Donnell asked: What if we keep the law the same way it is right now. The only change that we would make is in subsection 4 of section 1. That would be to leave that bracketed `but not exceeding 70 miles per hour' in. Leave that in there and have the rest of the bill basically deleted. That would keep intact the 70-mile an hour speed limit, it would keep intact the 55-mile an hour wasting energy ticket from 55 to 70. It will also bring it back to $5, but over the 70-mile-an-hour speed limit, you would not be penalized for insurance purposes as a moving violation unless you did not pay the fine in a timely manner. Is that more reasonable? Does that satisfy everybody's concerns? Mr. Joseph asked if this is going to leave the discretion to the officer as to whether he can cite a person for wasting energy for speeding which is reportable, or is this going to ... Senator O'Donnell said it is not reportable if the committee changes the law. Mr. Joseph asked if the ticket is not reportable regardless of what the officer writes the ticket for as long as the ticket is just for speeding, and the person pays the fine? Senator O'Donnell answered, if the person does not pay the fine, they will be reported. Senator Washington stated that as long as the ticketing is left to the officer's discretion, after 70 MPH it is safe and prudent based on the road conditions, the weather conditions and the yield to right-of-way. Mr. Hammack asked if the proposed amendment will take out the brackets and leave in the "not exceeding 70 MPH?" Senator O'Donnell responded that the brackets will be left in. Subsections (a) and (b) will remain as they are in the amendment. All the rest of the new language will be deleted. Mr. Hammack asked if the amendment will make everything a waste of natural resources and all the fines will be back to $15? Senator O'Donnell responded the only difference is whether or not the ticket is reportable as a moving violation. Ms. Lusk stated what the committee is proposing is understandable for the average citizen and will create less anger. Mr. Dornsife stated he is in favor of the modifications that Senator O'Donnell has indicated. Senator O'Donnell called for a motion on the new proposed amendment. Section 4 (a) and (b) leave that intact and delete the rest of the bill. That will allow someone driving beyond the 70 MPH to be ticketed; he will still have to pay the $5 plus ticket, but the ticket will not be counted against him as far as insurance purposes or a moving violation as far as points. Senator Porter asked if page 3 of the amendment is deleted, would not the committee want to keep in the weather and ... Senator O'Donnell asked for a motion to keep subsection 4 (a) and (b) intact. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO KEEP SUBSECTION 4 (A) AND (B) INTACT. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell moved to section 2, reading from preamble of section 2: "Basic rule: Effective on the date the national maximum speed limit is judicially declared to be invalid." Senator O'Donnell stated that yesterday (May 5) the Senate passed the repeal of the 55-MPH limit. It is going to the House. If passed, this section stating "what is reasonable and proper"will go into effect. He asked if the committee wants the weather and other highway conditions to be a part of the reasonable and proper speed limit. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO KEEP SECTION 2 INTACT AND ADD ANOTHER SECTION TO SAY IF THE FEDERAL SPEED LAW HAS BEEN REPEALED. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell stated that section 3 deals with the $40 and $50 fines. There were no comments on that section. Senator Washington asked if section 3 is going to be deleted? Senator O'Donnell said that if section 3 is deleted, the law remains the same. Senator O'Donnell stated that section 4 makes the violation not a reportable incident to the DMV&PS for insurance purposes. Mr. Joseph suggested that a flat rate of $15 be the fine no matter how fast a person is going, and have the law vigorously enforced. Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst, testified on section 3, page 3, subsection 3, if the wording is "such a violation shall be deemed a moving traffic violation in cases where the person exceeds 70 MPH and if the person fails to pay the fine imposed in a timely manner," maybe that will cover. The committee determined that the revenue difference will be $1,050,000 if the $15 fine is left in for all tickets. Mr. Hammack stated that there will be a $3.57 million loss if all ticketing goes to $15. That is the money that supports the schools. This is determined using the figures available from Montana, when they made this change. Senator Porter asked about the commercial tandem trailers? Mr. Dornsife stated that the federal studies, where the law changed the highways from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, commercial vehicles changed less than 1/2 mile per hour. The reality is that they do not drive any differently. Senator Porter asked Mr. Hammack to answer that question. Mr. Hammack replied that commercial vehicles are on time lines. The frequency of violating the speed limits for commercial vehicles is proportionate to the number that are on the highways. The same percentage will violate the law who do now and possibly more. Senator O'Donnell suggested that the committee average the wasting energy fines, creating a 70 MPH wasting energy barrier. Between 55 and 70 MPH there is a $15 energy wasting charge, 70 MPH and faster there is a different wasting energy charge that is revenue neutral. Senator O'Donnell took a recess while waiting for a bill drafter. Jan Needham, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), testified: If I understand the intent of the committee correctly, you are looking to amend section 3 to change the fine schedule for a speed violation. Essentially, what the committee may do is to [say]; any speed violation that does not exceed 70 MPH can remain a $5 ticket. Anything at 70 MPH or over could be set by the court, as long as the Legislature establishes an upper limit for the fine. Senator O'Donnell verified that will not be on a driving record and not used against a person for insurance. Ms. Needham stated, "As the section is written now, it would be deemed a moving traffic violation and on your insurance only if you did not pay the fine on time. That can remain in the bill, or that can be taken out." Senator O'Donnell stated that the concern is the constitutionality and whether it will hold up in court. Ms. Needham stated, "I think it would be a valid exercise of your authority." Senator O'Donnell asked if the committee makes the bill read that the fine is determined by the courts not to exceed a certain amount of money, then the court is given the flexibility to administer the fines according to mitigating circumstances? Ms. Needham stated, "Yes, it would." Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Hammack what fee may be commensurate of not losing an average $3.5 million? Mr. Hammack asked if the committee is looking at setting a set standard fee, no matter how fast a person is going? Senator O'Donnell replied that he is looking for a maximum fee cap. Mr. Hammack replied: A violation of 484 is a misdemeanor, so you already have a built-in cap by how a misdemeanor is defined in statute. It is either $500 or $1000 is the maximum a misdemeanor violation can be punished by, and 6-months in jail. Since this is a misdemeanor, you already have an upper cap set by statute. Ms. Needham stated: "That is true. You can adjust that according to the circumstances. If you do not want that cap as high as a regular misdemeanor, you can change that for these particular circumstances." Senator Washington stated that using $50, the equation comes to $3.5 million. Senator O'Donnell stated that covers the loss, but not the existing revenue. To cover that, the committee is looking at probably a $100 ticket for the above 70 MPH. He asked how the committee feels about that? Looking at Clark County, between one and ten MPH over the speed limit creates a fine of $55. Between 11 and 20 MPH over is a $110 fine. Between 21 and 30 MPH over is $165. Between 31 and 40 MPH is $220. He said somewhere in the $100 range is more than reasonable, and to let the courts determine if the fine should be less than that. Senator Porter stated that if a person has an accident and gets a ticket, everyone in his zip code area will be penalized for that accident. "The reason an insurance company uses speeding violations to determine rates is, typically that person that breaks the law is going to have a major accident. That is how they determine them; is by speed violation. Someone with two or more speeding violations ... is almost 10 times as likely to cause a wreck than that person that does not. This is how rates are determined." Senator Washington asked if the insurance companies determine the rate by the population and the number of moving violations or fatalities? Senator Porter replied that it is determined by the amount paid out for violations. If the driver hurts somebody, everybody's rates go up. Senator O'Donnell stated in section 3 subsection 3, the committee wants the language changed to delete everything except to allow for 70 MPH over, the defendant is subject to a $100 fine, that may be reduced by the court. Below the 70 MPH is still the $5 wasting energy charge. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DELETE EVERYTHING EXCEPT TO ALLOW FOR 70 MPH OVER TO BE SUBJECT TO UP TO $100 IN FINES. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Lee asked if this will not create a revenue loss for the schools and education? Senator O'Donnell replied that using the calculations presented to the committee, that is correct. Senator Porter asked if the revisions will be drafted and the committee will have the opportunity to review? Senator O'Donnell replied, "That is correct." THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell proceeded to section 4 and asked if the committee wanted to revise that section. He asked Mr. Hammack what that section does? Mr. Hammack replied the section is an attempt to look at the impeding driver. Mr. Dornsife said if someone driving 55 MPH in the fast lane, is impeding traffic and keeping the flow from getting around them; this will change so a person driving over 55 MPH, but with the flow of traffic, will not be cited for impeding traffic. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO KEEP SECTION 4 IN THE AMENDMENT. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell went to section 5. Ms. Needham stated: This is a section that will become effective in the future, so the changes that are made in section 1 of this amendment need to show up as old language in this section. It is just a technical drafting provision. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO KEEP SECTION 5. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Ms. Needham stated that section 6 is also a technical amendment in the same manner as section 5. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO KEEP SECTION 6. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 133. Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on S.B. 295. SENATE BILL 295: Revises provisions relating to liens levied for failure to pay fees and other money owed to department of motor vehicles and public safety. (BDR 43-566) Donna Wadey-Howell, Acting Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), testified that the bill is proposed by the department. The reason is to allow for a lien on a vehicle in excess of 26,000 pounds, who pay their registration on a quarterly payment plan, because those people pay their first payment and do not make the follow-up payments. DMV&PS wants to have the ability to seize those vehicles and try to get the payment from the registered owner before placing a lien on the vehicle. Senator O'Donnell asked about having a quarterly tag? Mrs. Howell replied that DMV&PS would rather not get into that. Senator O'Donnell stated that the other alternative is to look at a yearly fee. Mrs. Howell stated she thought that had been the committee's discussion at the last meeting. That compromise had been reached with the motor carrier industry when DMV&PS had raised the fees from $460 for an 80,000 pound vehicle to $1360. The impact on the small trucking company was severe and the DMV&PS worked out a compromise with them to pay on a quarterly basis. Those are the companies DMV&PS is having a problem with. Mr. Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc. (NMTA), testified it really is not the truckers that the bill is meant to accommodate; it is the contractor who has requested this clause be included. The seasonal nature of the vehicles they use will allow them to not register that vehicle until April 1, paying quarterly and being able to turn the plates back into DMV&PS in the last quarter and get credit or a refund for the time still on the plates. Mrs. Howell stated that there is a mix of people DMV&PS is having trouble with; the 80,000 pound vehicles as well as the smaller vehicles. Senator O'Donnell asked if the people who have not paid their charges can be flagged by DMV&PS? If they are delinquent for 30 days, could the bill be changed to allow DMV&PS to have the authority to charge them a year's worth of fees from that point on? Mrs. Howell stated that will be a capability on the part of DMV&PS. Mr. Capurro stated that will be supported by NMTA. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 295. SENATOR LEE AND PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 295. Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on S.B. 297. SENATE BILL 297: Makes various changes to provisions governing regulations of motor carriers. (BDR 58-579) Mrs. Howell testified this bill brings DMV&PS into compliance with the IRP (International Registration Plan) and IFTA (International Fuel Tax Administration) with regard to records retention and some other technical changes. Senator O'Donnell called for a motion. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 297. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 297. Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on S.B. 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. (BDR 43-1918) Senator O'Donnell stated that there is an amendment to this bill. The main concern is that the department can deputize anybody, and they will be allowed to work in the state with the police department. The amendment, section 2 page 1 line 4, after "this state," insert "or in any other state". Section 3 deleting lines 8 and 9 and it will say, "If the circumstances require the appointment of persons with special skills or training, the chief of the investigation division may appoint persons as investigators who have those special skills or training and have completed the requirements for the training for a category 1 police officer pursuant to NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 481.053." Mr. Capurro stated NMTA has some concern over the language in section 2 which allows the chief of the investigation division to appoint the Reno City Police Department to enforce the provisions of 706. Senator O'Donnell asked if Mr. Capurro can get together with the other parties concerned on this bill and come up with some language that is acceptable to everyone for an amendment. Senator O'Donnell closed the meeting on S.B. 323. Senator O'Donnell opened the meeting on S.B. 332. SENATE BILL 332: Revises provisions relating to unfair practices of motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, factory branches and their representatives. (BDR 43-1043) Senator O'Donnell said there is a proposed amendment by DMV&PS (Exhibit E). Mr. Capurro said he has no problem with the language proposed by DMV&PS. Mr. Capurro presented a proposed amendment (Exhibit F) for consideration. Mrs. Howell stated that she has no problem with the language proposed by Mr. Capurro. Senator O'Donnell called for a motion. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND WITH EXHIBITS E AND F AND DO PASS S.B. 332. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Diane C. Rea, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Transportation May 4, 1995 Page