MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-Second Session
April 30, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:32 p.m., on Wednesday, April 30, 2003. Chairman Tom Collins presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Tom Collins, Chairman
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn, Vice Chairman
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. Bob McCleary
Mr. Harry Mortenson
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson, excused
Mr. Chad Christensen, excused
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Warren Hardy, Clark County Senatorial District No. 12
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tracey Taylor, Deputy State Engineer, Nevada State Engineer’s Office
Verne Rosse, Deputy Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Ray Bacon, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Steve Grabski, Administrator, Division of Measurement Standards, Department of Agriculture
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Department of Agriculture
Peter Krueger, State Executive, Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association
Daryl Capurro, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.
Gary Wolff, Legislative Advocate, Teamsters Local 14, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Chairman Collins:
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining is open for hearings this afternoon. [The secretary called roll.] We have a quorum. We are going to start with Senate Bill 336, Senator Hardy’s bill. We’re waiting for some more members of our Committee, because we have to take some action that will require a two-thirds vote. Mr. Mortenson is in the Senate testifying currently.
Senate Bill 336 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to water rights. (BDR 48-848)
Senator Warren Hardy, Clark County Senatorial District No. 12:
[Introduced himself.] There are several things that S.B. 336 does. The first was a concept I brought forward, and the second was one from the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Section 3 of the bill addresses the original intent and the concept that I brought forward. It arose from a situation I had with my family. My father and my uncle purchased a piece of property adjacent to the business they owned. As part of that transaction they acquired some water rights. They filed an application to have those water rights conveyed to their names. There were 57 acre-feet of water in question. These were old perfected water rights from the 1930s and 1940s. They had the water rights transferred to their names and received a letter from the State Engineer saying that they had transferred 57.3 acre-feet of water. A layman, a nonexpert in water law, would assume that they now had possession of 57 acre-feet of water. When they sold the water and then subsequently applied for a point of diversion transfer, the State Engineer came back and said, because of the law of prior appropriation of beneficial use, they actually were only entitled to 17 acre-feet of water. In addition to that experience, it came to my attention that there are some old water rights in this state that are referenced in terms of cubic feet per square inch instead of acre-feet.
Section 3 of S.B. 336 would require the State Engineer, when he confirms a conveyance pursuant to this section, or when he informs somebody that water has been transferred into their name, to simply indicate in the letter that this may not be a finding of how much water is actually available for their use. It simply notifies the public. In the case of my father and my uncle, obviously it’s too late, but I didn’t want this to happen to anyone else.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority also requested an amendment, because this dealt with the appropriate chapter of NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes). [The Southern Nevada Water Authority was not present, but the Chairman advised that one copy of their amendment was available.] They have an additional amendment that they needed. Apparently there were some applications regarding municipal use that are in court, which are taking longer than the one year prescribed in the law. They have two separate cases. One individual has said that, because it took more than a year, they are deemed denied. In another case, an individual said, because they have taken more than a year, they are deemed approved. What this amendment says is, if the State Engineer takes more than one year to act on the water right, the rights are neither deemed approved or deemed denied. That was just a friendly amendment from them.
Chairman Collins:
Do you have a copy of the proposed amendment from the water district? I just want to make sure you agree with it, and, if you do, the members can write it in. Perhaps we can get copies later. On page 3, line 12, are you deleting “and” in the brackets and inserting “or?”
Senator Hardy:
That is my understanding.
Chairman Collins:
They want to add an “or” there? [Received confirmation.] Then on line 14, delete “and” at the end of the sentence and insert “or” there also.
Senator Hardy:
That is correct. I have no problem with that. Again, that was a friendly amendment.
Chairman Collins:
[Clarified to the Committee members to insert “or” at the end of lines 12 and 14 to replace “and.”]
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I want to make sure. It’s going to say, “The applicant or action may be postponed”.
Chairman Collins:
No. “Action may be postponed, or action may be postponed by the State Engineer.”
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
So it’s for different purposes. [Received confirmation.] “For which the application was made is municipal use or in areas where,” is that how that would read now? [Received confirmation.]
Chairman Collins:
There are two reasons the State Engineer can postpone. It doesn’t have to be both reasons. Then it goes down to the third reason in subsection (c). Instead of it being three reasons, it’s any one of the three.
Senator Hardy:
I don’t wish to speak for the State Engineer’s Office, but I’ve had conversations with them about my portion of the bill, and they are in complete agreement and think that it’s a good idea.
Chairman Collins:
From what I understand, the State Engineer and also the Southern Nevada Water Authority representatives are downstairs in the Senate Natural Resources Committee at this time.
Tracey Taylor, Deputy State Engineer, Nevada State Engineer’s Office:
[Introduced himself.] I think there was going to be an amendment. Sorry about being late. We were going to change “and” to “or.” [He was advised that was done.] Then I just want to say that we are in favor of the amendment. We have been discussing the bill, and I just wanted to get it on the record saying we’re in favor of it.
[There was no further discussion.]
Chairman Collins:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 336. We will open the hearing on S.B. 127. This comes from the Committee on Commerce and Labor on behalf of the Subcommittee on Industrial Explosives.
Senate Bill 127 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing hazardous materials. (BDR 40-296)
Verne Rosse, Deputy Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection:
[Introduced himself. Spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit C).] S.B. 127 is the result of investigations conducted by the Interim Subcommittee on Industrial Explosions. The purpose of the subcommittee was to investigate the incidents involving explosives and flammable gases in Clark and Douglas Counties, respectively, and to provide recommendations to this session of the Legislature for any legislation to improve the regulations of highly hazardous substances.
The Division of Environmental Protection participated in the Subcommittee meetings and recommended this legislation. The bill clarifies the Chemical Accident Prevention (CAP) program requirements and unifies program processes by moving the technical regulatory requirements for conducting risk assessments from statute to regulation. The Chemical Accident Prevention Act, passed in 1991, requires facilities with regulated quantities of highly hazardous substances to register with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), to follow a process prescribed in statute to assess potential risks of chemical accidents, and to develop extensive plans to abate identified hazards.
In 1997, the statute was amended to provide Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) with additional authority to adopt regulations and seek delegation for implementing the requirements of the federal CAA (Clean Air Act) Risk Management Program. Extensive regulations were adopted to implement those requirements resulting in two similar, yet distinct, processes, one prescribed in statute by the original law and one in regulations. In 1999, a permitting requirement for new facilities was added to the state statute, and, again, regulations have been adopted to implement that requirement.
Although these various amendments have strengthened the original law, they have also added confusing and duplicative requirements that are difficult to administer, as well as to understand, by the regulated community and the public. Removing technical regulatory detail from the statute would help to harmonize program requirements and would allow the NDOW staff and regulated facilities to focus on implementing an effective safety program, rather than expending staff time on cumbersome administrative requirements.
[Verne Rosse continued.] Aside from the technical changes in the proposed bill, the significant provisions of the bill are in the following sections:
[Verne Rosse continued.]
In conclusion, the Nevada Division for Environmental Protection believes that this bill will further the prevention of accidental releases of hazardous substances and will assist the regulated community in determining how to comply with the program.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
On page 25, where you are taking out all of the references to “ammunition” and “black powder” and things like that, will that be exempt altogether in your new regulations or how will that be handled?
Verne Rosse:
We are taking out of statute that long definition from Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and letting the Environmental Commission adopt those by regulation. The same exemptions that exist there in that federal definition will exist in the state regulations as well. We’re not trying to add anything to that definition. It just provides more flexibility on the application.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Which section dealt with gasoline?
Verne Rosse:
There is not a section in the law. It just provides, in Section 15, that the Commission may adopt regulations to implement the Clean Air Act’s Risk Management Program. When we adopt that federal program, the federal regulation actually exempts gasoline, so we would be adopting that by reference.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
We are technically removing a lot from the NRS. It will be established by regulation, and those regulations will follow the federal regulations. Is that what you’re saying?
Verne Rosse:
That is correct.
Ray Bacon, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Manufacturers Association:
[Introduced himself.] I think most of the members of the Committee are aware that the primary facilities regulated by the CAP program are manufacturing companies. We have worked with Mr. Rosse on this bill, as well as the Interim Committee on Explosions. We’re in favor of this bill.
Our only change, which is minor, is in Section 7, page 9. The way that reads is “Designating a list of highly hazardous substances, including, without limitation, any chemical. . . .” What we have agreed to, verbally, as a starting point, is the existing list, because the existing list has taken us a long time to get consolidated. For those of you who have not dealt with this, the Nevada CAP program came into existence first, then the federal Process Safety Management Program, and then the Clean Air Act Risk Management Program. Because we are a small state, we have consolidated those three programs into one program. Part of the reason for moving this into regulation is because these things change. We want to keep the one program rather than winding up with two or three programs, which is what other states have. It doesn’t make any sense in a small state like ours. We are down to about 40 regulated facilities in total. For 40 facilities, we don’t need three programs.
Chairman Collins:
That sounds like a good plan.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Do you agree with the increase in the fines and the increase in the penalty in Section 16, page 17?
Ray Bacon:
This has been a very cooperative program since it started. The issue has been to improve the safety at the existing plants. When there is somebody out there who is in flagrant violation, we don’t care what happens to him or her, because our members fundamentally run good, clean plants, as Mr. Rosse will attest to. In the incidents that happened this year, neither one was a member of ours, especially the one in Minden. I’m not sure how strict we could have made this because he violated every single rule in the book. He didn’t have anything. We don’t care if you throw away the key, throw him in the river, take him in a brown bag and drop him in the river, whatever – it doesn’t matter.
Chairman Collins:
[There were no further questions or testimony.] We’ll close the hearing. While we have two-thirds of our Committee members present, we passed out two bills last meeting, and we have some corrections to make. It will take a two-thirds vote. I will let Ms. Eissmann explain.
Linda Eissmann, Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
We are referring to the state parks bills that we voted on last Monday. One was S.B. 144. You will recall that’s the bill that allows the state parks to charge the administrative fee on the federal grant program. The other was S.B. 401, which is the bill that allows state parks to take the fees from leases and concessions and put it in their maintenance account, as opposed to putting that money into the General Fund.
Senate Bill 401: Revises provisions concerning disposition of money received from concessions on property within state park or property controlled or administered by Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (BDR 35-1262)
Linda Eissmann:
Both of those bills were Amend and Do Pass by the Committee. I prepared the amendment on S.B. 401 and took it to the Legal Division. After thorough analysis with Kim Morgan and Brenda Erdoes, we realized that amendment couldn’t go on that bill, but it could go on the other bill. S.B. 401 had to do with state parks’ fees for leases and concessions. The amendment that we tried to put on that bill was twofold. It addressed changing the name of an existing park by the Division administrator, and it also required the statewide-all parks annual park permits. The reason it can’t go on that bill, although it does apply to that specific statute, is because it is not germane enough to the issue of this maintenance account and the concession fees. The Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), in their diligent efforts to apply the germaneness rule, decided that, while it couldn’t go on that bill, it could go on the other bill, S.B. 144.
We were going to amend S.B. 144 to put a 10 percent cap on that administrative fee. When I looked further at that bill, I realized something that I think the Committee might have been confused about on Monday. I thought I would just bring it to your attention. You will recall that the state parks’ staff was talking about a 10 percent cap, and Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Mortenson both asked where that was in the bill. State parks didn’t specifically point to it. I think there was some confusion about where the 10 percent cap was in the bill. Look at the bill in its original version, which is the black tab. On page 2 of the original bill, starting on line 7, which is subsection 2 of Section 2, the 10 percent cap was there; it was in the original bill. The Senate amended that out. If you look at the revised version of the bill, the first reprint, the same place, on page 2, starting on line 7, which is subsection 2 of Section 2, you’ll see what they replaced it with. My reading of this language that they replaced it with is not saying specifically 10 percent, but rather, it says that “the fee must be charged only one time for each grant awarded in an amount that is based on the direct costs attributable to administering the grant by one grant’s administrator and any associated travel, services, supplies and equipment.” I think what happened is they took out the 10 percent cap, and they replaced it with language that would allow the Division to charge the actual administrative cost of administering that specific grant. If the Committee is agreeable and is going to rescind the original vote and open this amendment up to accommodate the amendment from the other bill anyway, I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
[Linda Eissmann continued.] I think we can still incorporate the Committee’s intent to limit that to 10 percent, but I would also appreciate your clarification: Ten percent of what? Ten percent of the grant share or 10 percent of the total project cost? You’ll recall that state parks explained this was a 50/50 grant share program, which means that, if you have, for example, a $50,000 project, you’re eligible to receive 50 percent of that in a grant share. So you could get a grant for up to $25,000, but you, as the grant applicant, have to come up with the other 50 percent. That is a maximum. You could also get a lesser grant share. You could get a 30 percent grant share. It’s just that the maximum you can get is 50 percent of the total project cost. What I would need to know from the Committee, if you still want to do that 10 percent cap, is if you prefer 10 percent of the federal grant share or 10 percent of the total project cost.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
My thought was 50 percent of the federal grant share. I see Mr. Goicoechea agreeing.
Chairman Collins:
If you look at the language on the original bill, the line says “whichever is less.” Is that not what you would be agreeable to, Mr. Mortenson?
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Certainly. That would be acceptable. I think the federal grant share would always be less.
Chairman Collins:
First of all, I need a motion and a second and a two-thirds vote to bring back Senate Bill 401 to this Committee.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION ON S.B. 401.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblymen Atkinson and Christensen, and Assemblywoman Ohrenschall were absent for the vote.)
There are nine members present, so that is two-thirds. Now that we have S.B. 401 back, I’d like to hear the next motion to rescind S.B. 144.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION ON S.B. 144.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblymen Atkinson and Christensen, and Assemblywoman Ohrenschall were absent for the vote.)
Again, we have a unanimous vote of those present counting the number of nine members present in the Committee. The next thing is to Do Pass S.B. 401 with no amendment from this Committee.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 401.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblymen Atkinson and Christensen, and Assemblywoman Ohrenschall were absent for the vote.)
It is unanimous for those present, although it doesn’t take two-thirds to pass it back out.
[The Chairman opened the hearing on S.B. 144.]
Senate Bill 144 (1st Reprint): Authorizes Administrator of Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to charge and collect certain fees under certain circumstances and authorizes Division to enter into certain cooperative agreements. (BDR 35-493)
Chairman Collins:
Now we need to add an amendment to S.B. 144 that was previously amended on Senate Bill 401. This addressed the name changes in Section 1 and also the 10 percent language that was in the original bill, which included “whichever is less.” Is the Committee agreeable?
Assemblyman Conklin:
The 10 percent, is this of the $15,000? Is this the same bill or a separate bill?
Chairman Collins:
No. Look at S.B. 144, page 2, on the original bill at the black tab in your bill book. This is the original Senate Bill 144 as it came to us from Government Affairs.
Assemblyman Conklin:
Which change are we talking about?
Chairman Collins:
On page 2, lines 7 through 16. We would like to reinsert that language to make sure that we are presenting the intent on behalf of the Department of Conservation, Natural Resources, and the Parks Division. Their intent was for 10 percent of “the total amount of money provided for the outdoor recreational project” [Section 2, subsection 2(b)(1)], or [Section 2, subsection 2(b)(2)], “twice the amount of the federal grant provided for the outdoor recreation project, whichever is less.” It allows them to go up to 10 percent or less, but it covers their actual cost.
Assemblyman Conklin:
The original draft of the bill had that in, and the Senate amended it out. Correct? And, we are going to amend it back in? Is that what the motion is?
Chairman Collins:
Yes, we are going to amend it back to the original 10 percent versus what came over in the First Reprint where it was reprinted “if the fee is charged pursuant to Section 1, the fee must be charged only one time.” We’re putting the original back in. We’re not trying to combine them. Subsection 2, page 2, in the reprint would come out.
Assemblyman Conklin:
The entire subsection 2, page 2, of the original bill will be amended back in?
Chairman Collins:
Yes. Section 2(b)(1) and (2) of the original bill will go back in including the language we discussed. We would delete, in the First Reprint, subsection 2 of Section 2 in its entirety.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
As I read that language in the original version, that would allow you to apply 10 percent to double the federal grant. Is that not correct? Is that not what (2) means on page 2, line 14?
Chairman Collins:
Yes. That’s because the grants can be up to 50 percent. Say the grant was $5,000; the federal grant adds another $5,000; that’s $10,000. Then they would be allowed up to $1,000 or whatever the actual cost is, whichever is less. So they would have a cap of 10 percent of the total money, or whichever is the actual cost, and is less. In a small grant, it might cost them $1,100. In a large grant, it might cost them $5,000 or $6,000. It would be less than the 10 percent on a larger grant, but up to 10 percent or the total cost, whichever is less. It wouldn’t be $1,100. I spoke incorrectly.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
As I read that, if you had a $50,000 grant, and you’re going to go with twice the amount of the federal grant, that means you could impose 10 percent on $100,000. Is that not correct?
Chairman Collins:
If that was their total cost.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
You could impose a fee either up to $10,000 or whatever the actual cost of administrating.
Chairman Collins:
Or, whichever is less. That’s why we want to keep the language “whichever is less.” If their actual cost were less than $10,000, they wouldn’t get the $10,000. See where it says in (b), on line 11, “not more than 10 percent,” and then on line 16, “whichever is less?” They would get 10 percent or the actual cost, whichever is less.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
So, technically, what we are allowing is 10 percent of the total project cost rather than just 10 percent of the federal amount.
Chairman Collins:
Yes. Are there any other questions? Is everybody clear? That was their intent, and that was what was presented.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Because we are amending, maybe we could amend that line 2 out?
Chairman Collins:
Line 2 where?
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
If we just amend it with all of Section 2, page 2, instead of saying twice the amount of the federal grant provided for the total. We could say “not more than the 10 percent of the total amount of money provided for the outdoor project, or actual cost.” You see, I’m still trying to get back to where we just use 10 percent of the federal dollars. If we had a $50,000 grant and the project cost us $100,000, again, 10 percent would be 10 percent of the $50,000. It was in the federal grant and allowed for $5,000 in administrative costs. I think 10 percent on a project is considerable for administration. It seems like a lot.
Linda Eissmann:
I want to give you a brief example. Let’s say there’s a project that costs a total of $50,000. The grant applicant, rather than wanting 50 percent, wants 30 percent, which is $15,000. So, the grant share would be $15,000, but the total project cost is $50,000. The grant applicant is making up the difference. If you have 10 percent of the total project cost, that’s $5,000, but 10 percent of the grant share is only $1,500. The way this language is written, the difference would be $5,000, because that’s 10 percent of the total project cost, or 20 percent of the federal grant share. That would be $3,000. It says “whichever is less,” so in that specific instance, the fee would be $3,000, because that’s less than the $5,000, which is 10 percent of the total project cost. In that instance, that second part that you’re talking about removing actually is less.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Makes it less?
Linda Eissmann:
Makes it less.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Yes, I agree with that but, again, coming from local government, I really hate charging administrative fees on the part that the local or state government would put in. Technically, you’re charging administrative fees back against our own government dollars. I think it should just apply to the grant side.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
The language “or whichever is less” is unimportant because this is a cap. We know that they would never charge more than their costs up to the cap, so the language that we have in there, “or whatever is less,” I don’t think is relevant. We could just go with a simple amendment instead of going back to the original.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I can live with that. It’s just a case of where I would prefer that the 10 percent or the cap, the administrative fees be taken out of the grant, versus the whole project. That’s where I’m coming from. This wouldn’t allow that. We’re talking 10 percent of the total project.
Chairman Collins:
If the grant is less than what you’re putting up, that lowers the 10 percent cap.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Agreed. But, again, you’re assessing yourself administrative costs on your own money, and that goes against my grain.
Chairman Collins:
And, if you took out subsection 2 that you want to take out, that would leave the 10 percent cap higher than if you left that in to make it lower, even though it’s on the grant.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I would prefer that we just put in a 10 percent cap on the grant side or whichever was less. I realize it’s a little bit of a hardship.
Chairman Collins:
I think that’s what it is.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
What I’m saying is we impose a 10 percent cap on the grant funding or whichever is less, or actual costs, whichever is less.
Linda Eissmann:
I think that would effectively combine the Senate’s amendment, which is the actual cost, with the Committee’s desire to have a cap of 10 percent. It would just be 10 percent on the federal share. I think it really is a blend of the two amendments. Is that what you’re saying, Mr. Goicoechea?
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
That’s correct.
Chairman Collins:
The reprint from the Senate does not have a 10 percent cap. It has actual cost. If we went back to the original language, there is a 10 percent cap on the total money, or twice the amount of the federal grant, whichever is less, you still are getting 10 percent of a lower number, which I think would be lower than the reprinted amendment from the Senate.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
If you took less than the grant.
Chairman Collins:
Right.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
What about just going back to the latest version and saying 10 percent cap on the federal portion?
Chairman Collins:
Do you want it to be of the federal portion or of the total money or what?
Assemblyman Mortenson:
The federal portion would be my take.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I think if you make it 10 percent of the federal grant, perhaps you won’t get enough money to do the projects. They only give you $10,000, and it’s a $50,000 project; you’re only going to have $1,000.
Chairman Collins:
Which could be below actual costs.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Yes. I would agree with that. Again, I have a real problem with charging an administrative assessment back against your own dollars, because whatever isn’t a federal share is going to be the agency share. Why would you assess yourself an administrative assessment?
Chairman Collins:
Because we don’t raise taxes enough here to make things work right.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I would hope they had enough money to start the project without the 10 percent.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Maybe Ms. Eissmann could help us with this since she worked for State Parks. As I envision it, the money comes in from the federal government, and then it’s apportioned out. That’s the administrative part of the situation. Now the local government will raise a lot of money, and they will be administrating, too. Why should so much go for the part that the local government raises?
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Again, unless I am misunderstanding it, this fee is just for the grant administration. We are not talking about project administration. If we can’t administer the grant for 10 percent of our actual cost, we probably don’t need to be applying for it.
Chairman Collins:
So your motion would be for the federal grant money only?
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 144 TO INCLUDE TEN PERCENT ON THE GRANT MONEY ONLY, OR THE ACTUAL COST, WHICHEVER IS LESS.
ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Collins:
The motion is to make sure that the 10 percent cap is placed back in the bill. The motion is that the 10 percent would be based only on the grant money provided to a project, or the actual cost, whichever is less. Do we have any more discussion?
MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER VOTED NO. (Assemblyman Christensen was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Collins:
The motion on the amendment passed. Now let’s vote on the bill as amended. What it means is, if the project is a $100,000 project and they receive a grant for $18,000, they can then use up to $1,800, or their actual cost, whichever is less, to administer the grant. Is everyone okay with putting that amendment into this bill? I need a motion on the bill to amend and do pass.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 144.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
[No vote was taken, as there was further discussion.]
Chairman Collins:
Are there any other questions on Amend and Do Pass Senate Bill 144 with the other amendment that we took out of S.B. 401? Would you read that to us?
Linda Eissmann:
The other amendment on S.B. 401 that we had to take off and potentially put on this bill did two things. First, it requires that the administrator of the Division of State Parks cannot change the name of an existing park without having a two-thirds majority action approved by the Legislature. It leaves his authority to name new parks, but it removes his authority to change the name of a park without legislative authorization. Second, the amendment requires the State Parks system to offer a statewide all-parks pass that would be good in all of the state parks. They could also, if they wanted to, offer an individual park pass on an annual basis, but it would require a statewide annual park pass, the fees for which would be set by regulation.
Chairman Collins:
Does everybody agree with that? We just stuck it on the wrong bill. So we have an Amend and Do Pass Senate Bill 144 amending the name changing process, amending the fee structure for annual passes, and amending the language to address a cap on administration of grants. Is everybody clear with that?
ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 144.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER VOTED NO. (Assemblyman Christensen was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Collins:
I’m turning the Chair over to Vice-Chairman Claborn to handle the next bill, which is S.B. 485. I’m going to Government Affairs.
Senate Bill 485 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing weights and measures. (BDR 51-565)
Steve Grabski, Administrator, Division of Measurement Standards, Department of Agriculture:
[Introduced himself, spoke from prepared testimony, and provided one amendment (Exhibit D).] S.B. 485 is the Weights and Measures bill that modernizes the language of NRS Chapters 581 and 582 to meet current national standards and other state laws. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has created a book of model laws that provides uniformity among the states. Forty-five states have adopted this model law, and the language that is presented in this bill is very similar to that model language. This bill will allow the State Sealer to stay current with test methods and procedures through the Nevada Administrative Code [NAC] Chapters 581 and 582.
The language allows for interstate commerce to be uniform among the states and allows manufacturers to manufacture and package products in a single uniform method. Currently, milk and bread are two exceptions that are different in California and many other western states. This language would bring us into compliance with them, or at least into uniformity.
A significant change in the method of collecting fees is in the bill. Currently, there is a test fee for each commercial device. S.B. 485 proposes to change the test fee to a licensing fee. The fee values will remain the same, so there is no impact on business, at least until the Board of Agriculture deems an increase is needed. The test fee creates cash flow problems at the end of every fiscal year. Late payers and timing at the end of the fiscal year causes the collection of fees to arrive after the fiscal year closes. This causes the Division of Measurement Standards to pay bills and employees late. The license fee would allow us to collect the fee at the beginning of the year and establish our operating dollars for that year.
Based on the Executive Audit 02-06, it has been recommended that the Division test commercial devices on a statistical basis. This method will keep consumer confidence high, and it will also allow the Division to hire inspectors at a slower rate compared to some of our growth demands. If we continue to grow at the rate that we have, we will need to hire an inspector nearly every year. With this other plan, we can probably cut that in half or even more.
[Steve Grabski continued.] Authorization for increased consumer protection is in this bill in the form of shelf pricing, date coding, and other label requirements. Typically, these requirements are already an industry practice, and these requirements put all businesses on an even playing field.
There have been three amendments to this bill, which are attached to your handout on the last page. They were simply to modify some of the language. One was to remove the word “to.” The second was a technical correction that modified the chapters of NRS that the State Sealer is responsible for. The third was a request from Senator Carlton to keep standard package sizes for milk products. The Dairy Commission and the Division of Weights and Measures support the Senator’s amendment and feel it has minimal impact on the language of the bill.
There may be some concern with the bill as presented regarding the special police powers in Section 15.2. This section authorizes the State Sealer to arrest, without warrant, any person who violates a provision of this chapter. This language is part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) model law. Weights and Measures has historically been authorized to enter commercial business, stop and inspect vehicles, issue stop-use and hold orders, and seize incorrect weighing and measuring devices. The special police power would strengthen the ability of an inspector to perform these duties; having the authority and not using it helps to get compliance. Forty-five states have adopted the model law as the basis of their law. The Board of Agriculture stresses that compliance is the main objective of the Department and that the statutes should be written in order to gain compliance. Unless there is an extreme case, it would be negligent for the Division to use the authority to arrest someone.
Because there has been some recent opposition to Section 15.2, if it pleases the Chairman, I would like to withdraw that section of the bill. [The Chairman agreed.]
I would like to highlight Section 67 of this bill. This section creates the Division of Measurement Standards, and it is that Division that shall administer NRS Chapters 581, 582, and 590. This was a section that was amended by the Senate to correct the chapter authority. The Division consists of the Bureau of Weights and Measures and the Bureau of Fuel Technology. Weights and Measures (W&M) is an important consumer and business protection agency. Many states have elevated it to a department level because of its importance. Weights and Measures acts as a referee, or middleman, to ensure that what you buy is full measure and, at the same time, protects the business from giving away products. As an example, Weights and Measures tests gasoline pumps for accuracy and proper labeling. Our seal assures the public that they are not being cheated at the pump. At the same time, the station owner is not giving away product. The devices Weights and Measures test are the devices used by everyone when they buy groceries and gasoline. Nearly all commodities are weighed, measured, or counted. The Division of Weights and Measures assures that it’s done fairly. The laws and regulations are designed to insure equity in the marketplace. The Fuel Laboratory ensures that the quality and grade of your fuel is what you purchased. It also tests gasoline to make sure that it has no adverse impact on air quality. Washoe and Clark Counties use the lab to test fuel for compliance to their requirements.
Even with the creation of the Division, the State Sealer still retains the authority of the Division. NRS 581.030 is not being repealed. This section designates the State Sealer with the enforcement of this chapter.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
I’m just curious. When I buy a gallon of gas at a fuel pump, what is the plus or minus allowable error on that pump?
Steve Grabski:
If you were to purchase five gallons, you would be allowed 6 cubic inches of error. That would equate to perhaps a little over an ounce.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
That’s a very tight standard. That’s excellent.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I have an issue with several parts of the bill. In Section 49, if we pass this and make all those triple trailers unbutton before they can weigh on the scales, I can’t go there for my constituency.
Steve Grabski:
This section is a section that, although the language is slightly different, carries over from the existing language in NRS Chapter 582. This applies to public weighmasters and not just to construction sites.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I understand it refers to public weighmasters, but there isn’t a set of scales in Diamond Valley that weighs a set of triples. What you’re saying is that every one of those guys has to come in here, unbutton that third trailer, pull up, weigh it, and then try to back up and hook into it.
Steve Grabski:
Yes.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
It doesn’t happen right now, so what is the penalty of that public weighmaster?
Steve Grabski:
Unless there is some kind of complaint, which we generally do not receive on that type of a thing, we would put a warning out to the public weighmasters saying that they need to do that. It’s not something that we go out and actively look for or enforce. The reason for it is, if a truck were to manipulate his brakes as he goes onto the scale, he can actually create thousands of pounds of difference, either plus or minus, in the weighing of it.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I drove a little truck, and I understand how that works, but I’ll tell you, you are running an awful risk. You might bind it more than you’re going to help yourself and actually weigh light. So nobody does it.
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Department of Agriculture:
If I could add to that explanation at this point, there has not been a complaint to the Department.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
As long as we’re passing legislation, let’s address this. I think there has to be some flexibility if we’re talking about triples. It becomes a safety issue. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking hay trucks or whatever. We’ve made some changes in transportation; we’ve stretched out the length of these trucks; we’re going to allow them to run triples, longer length trucks; and yet we’re saying we can’t weigh them.
Steve Grabski:
The issue really is getting an accurate weighing of the net contents of the vehicle. With that, depending on the price of the commodity, a few thousand pounds one way or another may not affect hay or gravel, but, in some of the other commodities, it would have an effect.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
All right. I’m willing to settle for an agricultural/gravel exemption. I’m just saying it does make a difference. If you can cheat a couple of tons, that’s a couple hundred dollars. When you weigh, you roll across and leave it loose because, again, you don’t know if you’re going to cause that scale to rub. It might take away rather than enhance it. Those of us who have been in the industry know it doesn’t work to try to cheat it by brakes.
Steve Grabski:
The Department would not oppose an agriculture or low-price commodity exemption.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
Is this the amendment you handed to the Senate? Do you have another amendment for us today?
Steve Grabski:
The only amendment that I have, and I do not have it written, was to remove Section 15.2.
Don Henderson:
As clarification, that would be lines 12 through 15 on page 6.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
How are you signed in, Mr. Henderson? You are here to support it, correct?
Don Henderson:
I’m here to support Mr. Grabski.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I have concerns that I mentioned to Mr. Grabski and Mr. Henderson yesterday. I still have the concerns as far as the way the language bounces back and forth between where the authority lies. In this amendment that we see here on the last page, it states that the Division of Measurement Standards shall administer and enforce the provisions of NRS Chapters 581, 582, and 590. If you go back in the subnote, you mention that NRS 590.400 states that the State Sealer of Weights and Measures is responsible for that. Some of the repealed sections include language that the State Sealer of Weights and Measures is the person responsible for enforcement of the regulations and assessment of fines.
I have concerns, with the language in the bill and in the amendments, that the authority given to the State Sealer of Weights and Measures allows him to designate to the administrators. We are statutorily inserting that that authority may be designated to the Division of Measurement Standards rather than the State Sealer. I think all the language in the bill should be consistent and be to the point where all the authority is with the State Sealer of Weights and Measures. If he designates that, so be it, but I don’t like amendments where we say that the Division shall be administering and enforcing the provisions.
Don Henderson:
We’d be happy to meet with you to see where those inconsistencies are. From our perspective of this bill, the State Sealer is the Director of the Department of Agriculture, and he oversees this program. I don’t see this wording that you mentioned in Section 67 as being contrary to how we handle our other divisions within the Department. The statutes specify that the Director shall hire a State Veterinarian to run the Division of Animal Livestock Health, and that the state shall hire a State Brand Inspector to run the Division of Animal Identification.
If there is an inconsistency in how this delegation and establishment of a division is contrary, our intent was to have what have been the prior practices in establishing additional divisions in relaying that authority. If there are inconsistencies here, we’d be happy to talk to you about it. It did not come up in the Senate, and we certainly are unaware of it.
Steve Grabski:
NRS 581.030 was not repealed. That is where the Director of the State Department of Agriculture is designated as the State Sealer of Weights and Measures and is charged with the proper enforcement of the provisions of the chapter. I would assume that would override any of the other inconsistencies, but as Mr. Henderson pointed out, we can get together and have discussions with Mr. Geddes. [Mr. Geddes agreed.]
Assemblyman Carpenter:
In your handout you say the fee values will remain the same so there is no impact on business. It says, until the Board of Agriculture deems an increase is needed. Then on page 10, in Section 33, it says that the State Sealer of Weights and Measures may establish, and you have the new language, an annual fee for all commercial weighing and measuring equipment. It would make me feel better if the Board does it rather than the Director. I appreciate you taking out the police power.
I have another question on page 6 at the top on the first line where it says “without formal warrant.” It would seem to me that, like you said in your handout, you are trying to get compliance. If you walk into some of these places without a warrant and try to seize everything, you might have a real fight. I understand what you’re doing here, but it’s really reaching when you start to get into every package on the shelf. I think most of those things are already taken care of, aren’t they? Or, at least, most of them?
[Assemblyman Carpenter continued.] Also, I have concerns regarding all of these sections that you are repealing, especially the ones that deal with what the standard weight of grain, the division of yard and broad pole, and a mile, and an acre of land. We use those things, and we need to know where to go to find information if somebody wants to know how much is in a standard cord of firewood. I didn’t see any of that put back in the bill. I would think some of those things need to be looked at, because I know people use them. They are a standard of measure that’s there in everyday life.
Don Henderson:
We’ll try to handle those questions in the order that they were asked. The one comment that I would like to make is that we’re trying to develop some national standards. In commerce, it is important that you are comparing an apple to an apple, and, for the commercial side of the business, it’s important for a commercial dealer to know that the standards he has to meet in his home state are similar to what the standards are in the state next door that he’s trying to ship to. That’s what, overall, we are attempting. If you look at the ages of some of our statutes in this area, they’re pretty old. We’re trying to catch up. This is an area, as Mr. Grabski mentioned, that has been affected significantly by the growth in Nevada.
The first question I would like to address is about the Director adopting fees for license. If you refer to NRS 561.105, that’s the duties, rules, and regulations for the Board of Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture specifically adopts all regulations by the Department. So there is a review process and a promulgation process by the Board of Agriculture. The Director may propose fee increases. We go out through public hearing and testimony, but the final adoption of those regulations is by the Board of Agriculture. We have that check and balance. Mr. Grabski will try to address the other three questions.
Steve Grabski:
Your next question had to do with the seizure for evidence or entering into a place of business without a formal warrant. In NRS 581 that’s being repealed, we have basically the same language. It still says that we could enter, without formal warrant, any stand, place, or premise and stop any vendor, peddler, or junk dealer and have them proceed to the nearest location. The State Sealer of Weights and Measures may perform tests prescribed throughout this chapter. The language is being modified, but I don’t think it’s being strengthened. For example, regarding the entry into a commercial premise, it actually becomes weaker in the new language. Whereas we could go in without formal warrant and just do our inspection, now we need to actually have permission, even though we still do not need any formal warrant. I would have to research it for sure, but I believe this language has probably been in this model law since 1911. It is something that Weights and Measures just typically has the authority to do to protect consumers.
[Steve Grabski continued.] Your next question had to do with packaged products and whether they were already tested. They’re not. If we were to go into a grocery store and grab a box of Cheerios off the shelf, it was not inspected except by the manufacturer, and it would be their own quality control or their honesty that’s insuring that you’re getting what you’re paying for. One of the reasons that Weights and Measures exists is to protect the consumer. By doing this from time to time, we will pull packaged goods, whether they are prepackaged or being sold in bulk, and verify that the accuracy is there and that the consumer is not being cheated, and also to insure that the business is not giving away product.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
If you are asking permission to go in and do an inspection, you can do that anyway, can’t you? You don’t need a law to allow you to do that, or am I incorrect?
Steve Grabski:
I’m not exactly clear how it is. As Mr. Henderson was pointing out when he was speaking, we’re trying to adopt the model law that the federal government has recommended. This is because 45 states have adopted a version of this, and we‘re trying to be on the same page as all the other states getting uniformity.
Don Henderson:
I think we need clarification. The existing statute at NRS 581.070 (2), entitled “Powers and duties of the State Sealer of weights and measures,” states, and I’m quoting:
The State Sealer of weights and measures for the purpose mentioned in subsection 1, and in the general performance of his official duties, may enter and go into or upon, without formal warrant, any stand, place, building, or premises, or stop any vendor, peddler, junk dealer, driver of any delivery vehicle, or any person, and require him, if necessary, to proceed to the nearest location where the State Sealer of weights and measures may perform the tests prescribed in subsection 1.
That authority, in my interpretation, does not require the permission of the facility owner that you wanted to go check.
Chairman Claborn:
Does that answer your question, Mr. Mortenson?
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Somewhat.
Don Henderson:
I think Weights and Measures has been around for a while, and we’ve been operating under some rather strong statutory authority. I think there’s good reason why that was put in place at that time. I don’t get a lot of complaints through this Division and Bureau of past actions of how these statutes have been implemented. It’s always been the policy of the Department of Agriculture to work with our industries and work with the public to make sure that we get compliance in a reasonable manner. It’s not where we need to be onerous or when we need to be tough; we have the statute to back it up. Our preference of how to handle things is to work with people. I know there may be some anxieties. This is a sweeping change to existing statutes, but I will assure you that, with our current director and me, if I have anything to say, we will operate in the same manner we have historically.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I understand that, but, unfortunately, the bottom line is when you put something in statute, down the road somebody else is the director and starts enforcing it to the letter of the law. It can cause some real heartburn. I just want to make that clarification. I would prefer that we address some of these issues now.
Don Henderson:
I agree with that philosophy. I run into the same situation with federal agencies. I know exactly what you are saying. We would be willing to work through these issues with a subcommittee if that’s the preference.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
We can arrange that. Absolutely.
[There were no further proponents. The acting Chairman invited those in opposition to S.B. 485 to testify.]
Peter Krueger, State Executive, Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association:
[Introduced himself.] We’re supporting the bill. Instead of taking the Committee’s time because what I have are things that have been said so far, I would just like to work with the Committee to resolve these issues. I find that the Department of Agriculture is more than willing. Many of the questions that I had have already been addressed by the Committee. I will work with a subcommittee to come up with a bill that we can all live with.
Assemblyman Marvel:
How come this didn’t come up over at the Senate?
Peter Krueger:
I remember being in the Committee room when this was discussed. I remember Senator Carlton’s question, but it just got by me. No excuse. I think this is the people’s house, and that’s why it’s getting its proper hearing now.
Daryl Capurro, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.:
[Introduced himself.] Unfortunately, I track anywhere from 200 to 300 bills during a legislative session, and the summary of S.B. 485 didn’t catch my attention. Since it was brought to our attention, we do have some concerns with various sections. I apologize that there was no testimony on the Senate side. It would have been the same that we are going to testify to today.
Our concern, on page 6, is with subsection 2, from which Steve Grabski has already suggested that you remove the special enforcement of police powers. Unfortunately, if you were to stop somebody and you had no badge, no gun, no uniform, and no outward sign of authority, bad things could happen.
I will go back to the other section that we have a real concern about, which is the section prior to it, Section 15, subsection 1(d), which says “Stop any commercial vehicle after presentation of his credentials.” The current law deals with peddlers, vendors, and delivery vehicles. It is a large leap to go from a delivery vehicle to the entire issue of commercial vehicles. For example, if one of these people were to attempt to stop a highway commercial vehicle, double trailers, single trailers, triple trailers, whatever, with no marked car, no evidence or indication of authority from the state, our people are trained not to stop for that sort of thing, especially since September 11, 2001, and the possibilities for hijackings, security concerns, and terrorist activities.
We would indicate to you that we believe that language should be taken back to what the original law said. I think the original law goes a little bit further than what it probably should. But at the very least, go back to what was in there. Peter Krueger has the citation for that particular section. It is a concern to go to all commercial vehicles with respect to a non-peace officer-type enforcement agency, such as the Highway Patrol, which we obviously would stop for.
[Daryl Capurro continued.] My other concern is also in Section 49, as Mr. Goicoechea has pointed out. The way this reads, essentially we would always have to break up combinations, because there are very few scales throughout the state and most scales are no more than 70 feet, which means that, in every case where there was a longer combination, they would have to be uncoupled and recoupled. Right now, the Highway Patrol, when they measure, use platform scales, and they also use portable scales, and that is acceptable with respect to weight enforcement and the like. This section goes far past that, so we do have a real concern with the possibility of having to break up combinations. Mr. Goicoechea is exactly right. While trying to recouple a set of triples, you cannot back them; that is virtually impossible. [He offered to work with a subcommittee.]
Assemblyman Marvel:
What do other states do on this? As I recall, it was said we’re trying to boilerplate this with other state inspection laws and weights and measure laws. Do other states require this, or not?
Daryl Capurro:
I’m not aware. I’ve been shown what’s been called a model legislation book that’s apparently being recommended by their national organization. I am not real familiar with weights and measures as far as these issues are concerned. From the testimony I’ve heard, they probably do need some updating and some revisions. I really couldn’t comment on anything other than the sections that are currently in there.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Does California allow triples?
Daryl Capurro:
No. There are only 16 states that have longer combination laws that would allow for triples and longer doubles.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What does California do with weighing and combinations?
Steve Grabski:
I’m not positive what California does, but 50 states have adopted a book called “Handbook Forty-four” [Specifications, Tolerances, and Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices]by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. That book forbids double draft weighing, which is what‘s being described here. If you have a 105-foot truck and a 70-foot scale, it requires that you break down the truck and weigh the components separately. I know Florida has an agriculture exemption, and there may be other states that do.
Daryl Capurro:
That is not what’s done in the state of Nevada with respect to weight enforcement. They use the portable scales. The people that we see the most are the Highway Patrol, and they use portable scales. They are acceptable in court with respect to weights regarding the overloads on vehicles.
Assemblyman Marvel:
You don’t have to uncouple to do it?
Daryl Capurro:
No. There isn’t a Highway Patrolman around who would require that to be done.
Steve Grabski:
“Handbook Forty-four” that I mentioned, has an exemption for law enforcement for the purposes of surveying and for weight enforcement.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
When you cross the port of entry into Utah, Idaho, California, or wherever, they only catch actual weights. It rolls together; as you go across, they don’t stop you and weigh the whole combination. They can enforce that, too.
Daryl Capurro:
That’s correct. That’s a weigh-in-motion program, which Nevada participates in. In fact, they are weighed in motion traveling at highway speeds. That is acceptable for weight enforcement.
Gary Wolff, Legislative Advocate, Teamsters Local 14, Nevada Highway Patrol Association:
[Introduced himself.] What the bill says and what the intent of the bill is are probably two different things. I think most of the issues have been discussed. If there’s an exemption for the law enforcement, that’s fine, but it doesn’t say so in the bill. I would have a big concern for our troopers on that.
The second concern I have is the tearing down of these vehicles. First, if this law was enacted, and it was required of law enforcement, which I understand it’s not in this handbook they’re talking about, then that’s fine. But my other question: Who is going to accept the liability for one of our drivers when they get hurt tearing one of these rigs down? In a lot of our yards, these things are put together by “yard goats.” Drivers get in, take off, and they drive them. We don’t have drivers out there who are going to strip down a set of triples for the benefit of somebody. If one of them were to get hurt, is the state going to assume liability for this?
Vice Chairman Claborn:
Could you explain to me what a “yard goat” is?
Gary Wolff:
A “yard goat” is a vehicle that hooks on to trailers, moves them around in a big terminal, hooks them all together, and then, like UPS, you’ll see big triples. Their packaging people put it all in the trucks. When the trucks are all put together, the drivers come in, “zingo – away they go with the truck.” With a tractor-trailer, if they were stopped and had to comply with this and had to break the rig down, most of the drivers don’t break those rigs down.
So I’m on both sides of the fence here. I have the drivers, and I have the officers. [He offered to work with a subcommittee.]
[There was no further testimony on S.B. 485.]
Vice Chairman Claborn:
We’ll close the hearing on that and bring it back to the Committee. My recommendation would be to talk to Chairman Collins and put this in a subcommittee. We are adjourned [at 3:03 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sharee Gebhardt
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman
DATE: