MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
March 6, 2003
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:34 p.m., on Thursday, March 6, 2003. Chairman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman (excused)
Mr. Tom Collins (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Wendell P. Williams, Assemblyman, Assembly District No. 6
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
William E. Fowler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Pastor Sandy Blake-Toles, Remember Baby
Robert H. Toles Jr., Citizen
Wanda Beckett, Minister, Love Center Unlimited
Emily Gonzalez, Youth Pastor, Love Center Unlimited
Lisa Foster, American Automobile Association of Nevada
Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Eric Guevin, Director of Education, Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority
Doreen Begley, RN, MS, Nurse Executive, Nevada Hospital Association
Randy Rysewyk, Officer, Henderson Police Department
Patrick McGill, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Mark Vorderbruggen, Sergeant, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Steven M. Guderian, Regional Program Manager, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Chuck Abbott, Chief, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety
Traci Filippi, Highway Safety Representative, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety
Chairwoman Chowning called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Ms. Chowning asked the Committee secretary to mark Ms. Ohrenschall and Mr. Collins excused. She then opened the hearing on A.B. 120.
Assembly Bill 120: Requires use of device to alert driver that child has been left within motor vehicle while secured in device for restraining child. (BDR 43-308)
Chairwoman Chowning said that Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams had sponsored the bill. She noted that Mr. Williams was not yet present and asked if anyone else would like to testify on behalf of the bill.
Pastor Sandy Blake-Toles, Remember Baby, said she supported the bill. She explained there was a video (Exhibit C) that she wanted the Committee to view. The video discussed that leaving a baby unattended inside a vehicle during the summer could have fatal consequences. The commentator said that Pastor Blake-Toles had developed a system that reminded distracted drivers that babies were still in vehicles as the drivers were exiting the vehicles. The commentator explained that a voice recorder inside the vehicle announced, “Remember your baby” in English and Spanish when the vehicle’s engine was shut off. Pastor Toles said she decided to develop the device after she read about a 6-month old boy who had died from heat exposure when left alone in a car.
Pastor Toles said she was appearing before the Committee to speak for those babies and toddlers who had died at an early age because of tragic circumstances. At this time, Exhibit D and Exhibit E were given to the Committee. She asked the Committee to consider the importance of A.B. 120. She discussed the event that convinced her that the development of a warning system was necessary to save the lives of young children. She said caretakers were sometimes inattentive and forgot that young children were present in their vehicles. She talked about her experiences leading to the development of the device. Pastor Toles explained how the warning system worked. She said as long as the engine of the vehicle was running, the device would not be activated; as soon as the ignition was turned off, the recorded voice would say, “Remember your baby.” She pointed out that her warning device should be available for sale by June 2003. She hoped that the people of Nevada would be the first in the country to do something about this problem. Pastor Toles asked the Committee to consider mandating a device, not necessarily her device, as other companies were working on devices of their own.
Chairwoman Chowning complimented Pastor Toles on her excellent presentation.
Assemblyman Williams said that the bill was important, and, if necessary, this bill could be combined with other pending legislation. He explained that he was honored to sponsor A.B. 120 because of Pastor Toles’ commitment to saving the lives of children. He asked the Committee to carefully consider the bill.
Chairwoman Chowning asked about the patents for the device.
Pastor Toles responded that one patent had been approved, and she was waiting for another patent to receive approval. She hoped that the second patent would be approved in 6 to 8 months.
Chairwoman Chowning asked for the estimated retail price of the device.
Pastor Toles said she hoped it would be about $39 to $40.
Chairwoman Chowning wanted to know how loud the alarm portion of the device was.
Pastor Toles said it was very loud. She explained the warning system also had a visual component. That component had a blinking light with the words “Remember Your Baby” flashed on the dashboard.
Assemblyman Atkinson wondered if the bill mandated a device for each vehicle in which small children would travel.
Pastor Toles said the bill would require some kind of device reminding caretakers that certain children were present in a vehicle.
Assemblyman Atkinson opined that the bill would require a device in each vehicle transporting small children, and Pastor Toles said that was correct.
Assemblyman Atkinson was concerned that parents who were not forgetful would be required to install the devices in their vehicles.
Assemblyman Sherer asked if the bill required that a response be given based on the warning within a period of time or distance from a vehicle.
Pastor Toles said that requirement applied to a different kind of device. She explained that her device worked within a vehicle.
Assembly Sherer stated that he was in agreement with Assemblyman Atkinson.
Assemblyman Gustavson commented that Pastor Toles had developed a great device. He said, however, that he was concerned with government mandating things that did not affect most people. He asked when Pastor Toles would start manufacturing the device.
Pastor Toles estimated that the manufacturing process would begin in June 2003. She said the device would be sold on the Internet and in certain stores. She commented that something needed to be done about a problem that was not going away. She emphasized that people were sometimes so busy they simply forgot about the babies and toddlers. She said, sooner or later, there would be a law requiring a device or warning system of some type.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked how much testing had been done on the device to date.
Pastor Toles replied that the device was in the second stage of testing. The first part of testing had involved merely placing the device in a vehicle and determining if it worked with various children. She indicated that a manufacturing company was now conducting additional testing.
Assemblyman Atkinson wondered if the device could be used on a trial basis that was not mandated. He was concerned that all drivers and automobiles that transported smaller children would have to have the device if it were required.
Robert H. Toles, Jr., husband of Pastor Toles, spoke on behalf of the bill. He said nothing seemed to be accomplished until there was some sort of tragic event. He pointed out that since there was recognition of a problem, it was time to address it before other young children died. Mr. Toles explained that it had been reported by doctors that some people forgot their sleeping children in car seats.
Wanda Beckett, Minister, Love Center Unlimited, said that sometimes the most loving parents left their sleeping children unattended in vehicles. Ms. Beckett said that some people needed help to ensure they did not leave their children unattended. She explained that Pastor Toles’ device was good in that it made noise that could be heard by strangers outside of a vehicle.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Minister Beckett if people would be more likely to remove their children from vehicles if this device were installed, which Minister Beckett believed would be the case.
Emily Gonzalez, Youth Pastor, Love Center Unlimited, said she also had a background in social work. She spoke about a bi-polar mother who did not function normally when she was stressed or there was a change in her routine. She explained how that mother would have forgotten to remove her very young baby from her vehicle had she not been reminded by someone else. She said there needed to be help for people like that young mother.
Chairwoman Chowning mentioned that language in the bill provided that a system could be “incorporated within or separated from the device.” She commented that she found the language confusing. She mentioned that seat belts, car seats, and air bags at one time had been ideas, too. She said the Committee would have to consider the cost associated with the bill. Chairwoman Chowning opined that in the future, a device of that type might become an integral part of a child seat. She said the bill would be given serious consideration.
Lisa Foster, American Automobile Association of Nevada, said that her organization supported the concept of the device and wished to work with Pastor Toles to complete the testing of the device. She indicated that as of the date of the hearing, no similar devices had been subject to a complete testing in the United States. She explained that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had developed the device closest to being completely tested, and she thought it would be incorporated into the car seats themselves. Ms. Foster said that device was also being tested through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which was the group that tested car seats for vehicles. While she approved of the concept, she was not yet ready to totally support the bill, as she had not yet seen the device.
Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), explained that the bill directed the DMV to write certain regulations governing the use of the device. He said that his group developed most of the regulations for the DMV, but his group had no expertise concerning the device. He suggested that the Committee might want to choose a state agency that could better regulate the device.
Eric Guevin, Director of Community Education, Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority (REMSA), introduced himself as a Child Passenger Safety Advocate and a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Certified Technician. He had a few concerns with the device after speaking with the people who managed the National Safe Kids Campaign. He stated that those people could not support the device at that time because it had not been completely tested. He indicated that it was premature to consider the bill. Additionally, he pointed out, many car seat manufacturers would void their warranties if their car seats were modified in any way. He thought that the device had not been developed to the point where he could support it. As an advocate for child safety, he was adamant in his concern that no more children die in hot cars, but he remained unsure if the time had come to legislate use of a device such as that.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Guevin if he would work with the proponents of the bill to promote education and help children become safer with this device or something similar, and Mr. Guevin said he would.
Chairwoman Chowning wondered if Mr. Guevin had an opinion about line 3 on page 2 of the bill that stated “the system described may be incorporated within or separate from” the device.
Mr. Guevin explained that he had alluded to this when he talked about car seat manufacturers voiding their warranties in the event car seats were altered by the use of after-market products. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had no mandates to test or monitor the after-market products. A big concern would be crash testing and how that device would affect the seat in a collision.
As no one else came forward to speak in favor of or in opposition to A.B. 120, Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 120, and opened the hearing on A.B. 161.
Assembly Bill 161: Revises provisions relating to use of safety belts in motor vehicles. (BDR 43-117)
Randy Rysewyk, Officer, Henderson Police Department, explained that he handled serious and fatal accident investigations for the department. He stated that he had attended numerous accident investigation classes and had attended child seat inspectors’ and child seat technicians’ courses. He mentioned that the bill had two principal purposes. The first aim of the bill was to close a loophole for younger children. The current law governing seat belt use applied to those at least five years of age. He said that law did not protect children who weighed more than 40 pounds but were less than 5 years old. Officer Rysewyk reiterated that, under existing child restraint statute law, a child who weighed 42 pounds but who was less than five years of age would not have to be restrained by a seat belt or placed in a car seat. The second purpose of the bill would make it a primary offense for anyone under the age of 18 not to wear a seat belt. Currently, in Nevada, the nonuse of seat belts by anyone under the age of 18 was a secondary offense. If the nonuse of a seat belt were to remain a secondary offense, it would mean that police officers would continue to be unable to enforce the seat belt law unless another offense was the reason for the stop.
Officer Rysewyk talked about some of the accidents he had investigated as an officer in Henderson in which people who had not worn safety belts had been either severely injured or killed. Officer Rysewyk spoke of a man with full custody of his only daughter. A minor sideswipe with another vehicle sent his vehicle sliding sideways into a curb. When the vehicle hit the curb, his unrestrained daughter in the back seat was thrown against the door, which gave way. She fell out and the car rolled over her and killed her. The last fatal accident he had investigated involved two teenagers who had spent Christmas together and the young man was taking his girlfriend home. On a four-lane road with no other traffic, the boy lost control of the vehicle striking a power pole. They were transported to the University Medical Center’s Trauma Unit where she died several hours later, and the boy received a broken hip, shoulder, concussion, and other injuries that will require extensive rehabilitation. Neither one was seat-belted in. Between those two crashes he had handled many other fatal and severe injury crashes. One he remembered clearly was a man traveling southbound on Boulder Highway to take his daughter to school. A car pulled out in front of him, and he swerved to miss it. He lost control, left the road, and vaulted into a wash, flipping the car. The man was thrown over 50 feet in the air and landed in the northbound lanes. He was fortunate that no one was coming northbound at the time. His daughter received severe injuries as a result of being tossed around inside of the car, and then she was ejected through the rear window. Neither was wearing a seat belt.
Officer Rysewyk stated that in his expert opinion, with all of his training and experience, many of his investigations had indicated sufficient protection and ample space had been afforded inside the passenger compartments of vehicles, but, because the occupants of the vehicles had not worn seat belts, they had become projectiles. What should have been non-injury or minor-injury accidents turned out to be major reconstructive injuries or even death.
In 1998, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a study (Exhibit F) which gave valuable information for those concerned with traffic safety data and that supported the use of seat belts. Although seat belts remained a “noble cause,” most people believed they would never be involved in a fatal crash; they were correct. Less than 1 percent of automobile accidents resulted in death; however, one-third of all crashes resulted in injuries. In addition to saving lives, that part of the bill requesting that seat belt offenses be considered as primary offenses was concerned with minimizing pain and suffering of the participants in the crash, the mental anguish of the victims as well as the locals who dealt with the crash, the cost of medical insurance for the more severe injuries, and insurance for medical malpractice.
Officer Rysewyk said that when NHTSA took statistics and grouped them according to the age of the accident victims. The age statistics were divided in five-year increments. The data included the following risk indicators:
Officer Rysewyk pointed out that during a study for the period of April 2001 through March 2002, in every month except one, more people died not wearing their seat belts than those wearing seat belts. He hoped that people would notice that the 75 percent of those wearing seat belts during accidents in Nevada did not account for 75 percent of the fatalities resulting from accidents. He mentioned that the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety had lost about $440,000 in federal funding for the current fiscal year, because the percentage of use of seat belts in Nevada had fallen below the national average. He also indicated that because such federal funding was based on a two-year average, Nevada would lose about $500,000 in federal funding in the coming year. In 2001, the average seat belt use for those states with primary seat belt laws was 78 percent and 67 percent for states with secondary seat belt laws. He repeated that, although the use of seat belts in Nevada was higher than that of some of the other states in the western United States, Nevada was below the national average. As a result, Nevada was losing the federal funding. Officer Rysewyk noted that over the past several years the use of seat belts in Nevada had declined. He pointed out that there were a number of laws protecting the best interests of people less than 18 years of age. He said A.B. 161 was needed to protect those who did not yet make appropriate decisions for themselves.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if Officer Rysewyk would summarize the substantive aspects of the bill.
Officer Rysewyk said the bill would eliminate the loophole that does not subject a four-year old child who weighs more than 40 pounds to use a seat belt or to be restrained in a car seat. Under the measure, anyone who weighed more than 40 pounds would be required to wear a seat belt. Also, the bill would make it a primary offense for anyone under the age of 18 caught without a seat belt.
Chairwoman Chowning thanked Officer Rysewyk for his explanations and commented that the language of the bill, as presently drafted, was difficult to understand. She asked Officer Rysewyk if the bill were passed, if it would be a primary offense for the driver of a vehicle if someone else was in the vehicle under the age of 18 and not wearing a seat belt.
Officer Rysewyk stated that was correct. He explained that Section 5(b) provided that a ticket could be given if a driver who was 18 years of age or older or an adult passenger was not wearing a safety belt when the vehicle was stopped, or if the driver was arrested for another offense. The change would require a passenger younger than 18 riding in a vehicle without a seat belt to receive a citation.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked how Sections 2 and 5(b) of the bill were related.
Officer Rysewyk explained that Section 5(b) of the bill addressed what would happen to adult passengers if stopped for another offense, while Section 2 pertained to those persons who were not adults yet.
Assemblyman Carpenter said that the language needed to be clarified by the Legislative Counsel Legal Division.
Chairwoman Chowning said that would be done.
Assemblyman Goicoechea wondered, if the bill were passed, if the police had the authority to stop a vehicle if it was believed that someone under the age of 18 was in the vehicle and was not wearing a seat belt.
Officer Rysewyk stated that was correct. He explained, for example, that law enforcement officers who believed that a 12-year old child in a vehicle was not wearing a seat belt had the authority to stop the vehicle even if the driver were 18 years of age or older. However, if it turned out that the person thought to be younger was at least 18 years of age, the driver of the vehicle would not be cited.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if a police officer observed a vehicle with a passenger who appeared to be less than 18 years of age and who was not wearing a seat belt, if that officer would stop that vehicle.
Officer Rysewyk said the police officer would be required to have reasonable suspicion.
Assemblyman Gustavson thought there might be some problems with enforcing the proposed law. He wondered what would happen if a vehicle was stopped for a seat belt or child restraint violation and the driver, who was 40 years old, was not wearing a seat belt. He asked if the driver would be cited.
Officer Rysewyk responded that that the driver would not be cited.
Assemblyman Claborn said that he thought the concept of the measure was good. He wondered if the bill was touching on profiling.
Officer Rysewyk said the goal was to protect children. He explained that while the principal objective was to protect younger children, some teenagers had not thought through the consequences of their behavior.
Assemblyman Claborn appreciated that, but he wondered if problems regarding probable cause would lead to profiling.
Officer Rysewyk said that probable cause occurred when someone was observed doing something illegal. He explained that reasonable suspicion happened when a reasonable person believed that someone had committed a crime. If a vehicle were stopped because it appeared that an underage person was not wearing a seat belt but that person was at least 18 years old, a ticket would not be issued.
Assemblyman Manendo wanted to know about the 40-pound weight limit.
Officer Rysewyk explained that the child seat law provided that, if a child weighed 40 pounds or less, he/she had to sit in a child seat. However, if the child weighed more than 40 pounds and was less than five years old, then neither the current child seat laws nor seat belt laws would be applicable.
Assemblyman Carpenter wanted clarification about the state losing federal funding because of less-than-average seat belt compliance.
Officer Rysewyk stated that he had obtained that information orally from the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety.
Doreen Begley, Nurse Executive, Nevada Hospital Association, who was also scheduled at that time to meet with the Assembly Leadership, asked that the following statement (Exhibit G) be made a part of the record:
Testimony before the Assembly Transportation Committee
March 6, 2003
Doreen Begley, RN, MS
Nurse Executive for the Nevada Hospital Association
Emergency Department Staff Nurse for 30 years
Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the Committee. For the record, my name is Doreen Begley. I have been a registered nurse for the past 33 years, spending the first 30 years of my nursing career working as a staff nurse in the emergency department. I am here today on behalf of the Nevada Hospital Association and as an Emergency Room (ER) nurse, to urge you to strongly support AB 161, the primary seat belt law.
Working in the emergency department can be the most stressful aspect in a nurse’s career. Having to deal with life and death situations on a daily basis is incredibly demanding. But one of the most difficult aspects of the job is seeing the countless number of needless deaths and injuries that result from individuals choosing not to wear a seat belt. Having to inform the families of their loved one’s death or critical injuries becomes overwhelmingly tragic when health care providers know that it would not be the case had a seat belt been worn.
When an individual chooses not to wear a seat belt, while it is thought to be their personal right to make that decision, their injury or death does not just impact them. If affects the on-the-scene first-responders and every health care worker that is needed to help save their life. I can’t tell you the number of times I have discharged the battered, sutured and broken body of a victim of a car crash, who was wearing a seat belt, so they may go home to attend the funerals for the friends who were not.
The best solution for this tragic issue is Prevention. The best car crash is one that doesn’t happen; the best outcome from a car crash is to minimize the injuries and deaths whenever possible. Making seat belt use mandatory, and allowing the Nevada Highway Patrol and other law enforcement agencies to have the ability to stop un-belted drivers is the ultimate solution. I always wear my seat belt. Everyone who rides in my car must wear a seat belt. You should always wear your seat belt, and so should all Nevadans. On behalf of the Nevada Hospital Association, I strongly urge you to pass AB 161 so that we can insure that all Nevadans will Buckle Up.
Thank you for your time and attention. I am available to answer any questions.
Patrick McGill, Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, spoke in favor of A.B. 161. He said that making seat belt use mandatory for those 17 years of age and younger was a good start. He said a way to eliminate any possibility of profiling was to make seat belt use a requirement for everyone. He believed that all citizens should wear seat belts. Trooper McGill recounted some tragic traffic incidents where people would have lived if they had been wearing seat belts. He said those kinds of accidents had an impact on everyone involved, including law enforcement personnel and medical providers. He also stated that these incidents affected everyone financially. He concluded that if everyone wore seat belts, all of us would be better off emotionally and financially.
Mark Vorderbruggen, Sergeant, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, stated that he supported the bill. He explained that more high school students were involved in traffic accidents in Washoe County. He mentioned that about two weeks ago a vehicle that had left a Reno-area high school rolled over, and all four passengers were ejected from the vehicle. Fortunately, no one was killed. During the past two years, Sergeant Vorderbruggen had responded to two accidents involving serious or fatal injuries to high school students. He explained that in each of those incidents the people who were not wearing seat belts were either seriously injured or killed.
Steven M. Guderian, Regional Program Manager, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, spoke in favor of the bill. He explained that he had been a law enforcement officer for 23 years with 15 of those years spent as a traffic officer and an expert in collision investigation and collision reconstruction. Based on this experience, Mr. Guderian said seat belts work. He said that seat belts were the most straightforward and cost-effective means of saving the lives of those who were passengers in vehicles. He pointed out that when a state went from a secondary seat belt law to a primary seat belt law, seat belt use increased by an average of 11 percent. Mr. Guderian gave a couple of reasons why Nevada should consider adopting a primary seat belt law. First, in 2002, Nevada had recorded a record number of fatalities resulting from traffic accidents. Second, Nevada was the fastest growing state in the nation. He concluded that the increased number of fatalities resulted from a rapidly growing population. He mentioned that in 2002, Nevada’s seat-belt-use rate was just under 75 percent. A review of traffic accident statistics for Nevada in 2001 and 2002 resulted in statistics that indicated that 66 percent of the passengers were not wearing seat belts, he stated (Exhibit H).
Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, explained that it was difficult to enforce laws when they were age-specific. He stated that age-specific laws led to second-guessing and increased scrutiny. He said he served as a highway patrolman for 31 years, and he had heard all of the excuses why people did not wear seat belts. He also talked about some of the horrible accidents he had handled while a highway patrolman. He said that it was time for a mandatory seat belt law for all Nevadans.
Mr. Guevin said he supported a primary seat belt law. He said he worked on vehicle accidents involving people who had not worn their seat belts, and, as a result, had been ejected from their vehicles. He explained that many of those people suffered head and spinal cord injuries. He advocated booster seats for children from 4 to 8 years of age because often seat belts did not fit them properly.
Chuck Abbott, Chief, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety, said his staff had reviewed information furnished by the Nevada State Health Division about costs incurred by trauma centers. The state incurred a debt of $3.6 million in 2001 for medical costs for unbelted drivers that were not reimbursed. Mr. Abbott explained that, in the past, Nevada had a relatively high use of seat belts, and in 1999 and 2000, the state qualified for a $600,000 grant. In 2002, Nevada qualified for a $440,000 grant; however, that money was lost because seat belt use in the state had decreased, widening the gap between the percentage of use in Nevada and the percentage of use at the national level. Mr. Abbott was of the opinion that Nevada would probably not receive a grant for next year either.
Chairwoman Chowning requested that that information be presented in writing to the Committee.
Mr. Abbott told the Chair that Traci Filippi, the next presenter, would give that information (Exhibit I) to the Committee.
Assemblyman Carpenter said it appeared to him that in 2000, Nevada had the highest seat belt use of any state that had a secondary law, and Nevada was higher than ten states that had a primary law. He pointed out that for 2001, Nevada reported the fourth highest use of seat belts for secondary law states. He explained that if Nevada’s seat belt use was relatively poor, he could understand the loss of the federal grant; however, that did not seem to be the case.
Traci Filippi, Highway Safety Representative, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety, said that Nevada had lost the $440,000 grant because Nevada had fallen below the national weighted average, which was 75 percent. She stated that Nevada’s seat belt use had been 74.9 percent. She explained that as the grants were based on a two-year weighted average, the state would lose another $440,000 grant for FY2004.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked to see the statistics for all states because he wanted to determine if the federal government was treating other states similarly.
Ms. Filippi said she would furnish the information about the states that did receive grants.
Assemblyman Carpenter responded that he would find the information useful.
Ms. Filippi explained that Nevada had never qualified for “405” Federal Highway Grant Funds. She said that a primary seat belt law was one of the criteria for receiving those funds. If the state had a primary seat belt law, it would have received $209,207 for each of the last six fiscal years.
Assemblyman Carpenter questioned why Nevada had not received some of that money as, in 2000, the state had a higher use of seat belts than some of the states with primary seat belt laws. He said the federal government should be making grant decisions based on all the things Nevada was doing to increase seat belt use. He questioned whether a primary seat belt law would increase the use of seat belts all that much.
Ms. Filippi said that she agreed with Assemblyman Carpenter. She wished there was a different basis under which the federal authorities would grant money to the state. She explained that she really wanted to talk about the lives that would be saved if more people wore seat belts. She said the issue was one of economics. She pointed out that in prior sessions people had asked questions about insurance rates being reduced for consumers and about what other cost savings would result if there were an increase in insurance use. She said Exhibit I set forth the cost savings for reduced fatalities and injuries, which would reduce the amount of medical care subsidized by governmental entities. She indicated that a primary seat belt law would generate additional federal grants to the state.
Chairwoman Chowning explained that on many occasions laws had been passed based on economic projections, but the savings did not materialize. She said that in the past, insurance companies had been asked if rates would be reduced if legislation was passed, and the insurance companies had not responded.
Assemblyman Manendo asked if the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety was taking a position on the bill.
Ms. Filippi stated that it was not taking a position and that her agency was only providing information that had been requested.
Assemblyman Manendo explained that the state had lost federal funding because it had not passed the “.08 alcohol limit” bill for years. He said, as a result, the state had lost $900,000 per year under Title 23. He said he did not remember Mr. Abbott and Ms. Filippi making similar presentations to the Judiciary Committee during the past eight years.
Lisa Foster, American Automobile Association of Nevada, stated that her organization supported A.B. 161.
Chairwoman Chowning talked about her oldest daughter’s vehicle, which had rolled over three times off the highway in a state back east. Because Chairwoman Chowning’s daughter and three grandchildren were wearing seat belts, they survived the accident. She reiterated her belief in the value of wearing seat belts.
The Chair thanked Speaker of the House Perkins for asking that A.B. 161 be agendized in the Committee on Transportation. All of the testimony would be taken into consideration at another time. The hearing was closed on A.B. 161.
Chairwoman Chowning then directed the Committee to move into a work session to consider Assembly Bill 30. Work session documents for Assembly Bills 30, 58, and 83 were included in Exhibit J.
Assembly Bill 30: Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-67)
A.B. 30 was well remembered by Committee members, stated Chairwoman Chowning. She directed the secretary to make copies of the conceptual amendment, as that was needed before continuing to consider the bill. While waiting, another bill would be discussed. The work session on A.B. 30 was temporarily recessed.
Chairwoman Chowning then focused on Assembly Bill 58. She stated that the Committee members would remember that bill as well.
Assembly Bill 58: Extends to all counties prohibition against driver of motor vehicle allowing person to ride upon or within certain portions of motor vehicle under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-668)
The sponsor of A.B. 58 was Assemblyman Tom Grady, District 38. He asked during his testimony that an amendment be considered. Instead of “paved highway,” it would be “highway as defined by NRS 484.065.” The amendment also deleted “not being operated on a freeway or other road that has two or more lanes for traffic traveling in one direction.” Simply stated, the Chair said, “Children would not be allowed to ride in the back of a pickup truck.” The only exception would be when the pickup was used in the course of farming or ranching or being driven in a parade authorized by a local authority.
Assemblyman Claborn had assumed, he said, that there would be an added piece to the bill stating that camper shells were also to be included.
Chairwoman Chowning responded that the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Grady, had decided not to add that to his amendment. The Chair stated she would accept a motion.
Chairwoman Chowning referred the Committee to their work session document, Tab C (Exhibit J). That was the NRS definition of “highway” that had been provided by the Committee’s Research Analyst Marji Paslov Thomas whom she thanked for her help.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B.58.
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall and Mr. Collins were not present for the vote.)
Chairwoman Chowning then opened the work session on Assembly Bill 83. She reminded the Committee that, in the hearing, Assemblyman Carpenter and others brought up the difficulty with the structure of the bill. The Chair proposed an amendment to the bill. She then directed the members to open their bill books and turn to page 1. Many people had said that the local entities had signs saying that the type of braking system under discussion was not allowed in those cities. After she had consulted with the Legal Analyst, she thought it would make much more sense, if the following amendment read as follows:
The driver of a vehicle, which is equipped with a device for braking that uses the compression of the engine of the vehicle, may not use the device at any time unless the device is equipped with an operational muffler or the driver reasonably believes that it is an emergency.
The Chair commented that the wording above stated the concern much more reasonably than stating it in the reverse. That was the amendment being proposed.
Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association, stated that the new wording made it much clearer as intended by the bill. He addressed an additional concern, however, regarding that section of the bill. He believed that the Chair had been provided with information about Jake brakes or engine braking systems. In that information, there was one part that described the impact of Jake brakes with a muffler as having the decibel level of about 80 decibels, which was about the same as a ringing telephone. Without the muffler, the decibels would be louder than a motorcycle. The whole purpose of that section of the amendment was to make certain that the muffler was on and functional.
Drawing attention to the amendment in the work session document (Exhibit J), the Chair stated that she would accept a motion.
Mr. Capurro asked and was granted permission to comment on the amendment and/or on the bill with her proposed amendment. The language on page 5 of the bill was one issue. A question was asked in the original hearing was whether the permit system affected the hauling of nuclear waste or hazardous waste of any type and about the size and length of those vehicles, some of which were approximately 230 feet long. Nothing in A.B. 83 would affect nuclear waste transport, although existing legislation would require hazardous-materials permits and a separate permit for an undivided load. A.B. 83 was a divisible load permit and would not affect those sections of law at all.
The second concern was the confusion with respect to fees as opposed to fines. There was a question on the middle of page 5 on the removal of “the maximum fee must not exceed $2940.” A fee of that amount meant that a permit had been purchased for 129,000 pounds at $60 per thousand pounds. A fee could not exceed that amount. With that language in place, one could not charge that individual for an additional 10,000 pounds if the load had been found to be 10,000 pounds overweight. A criminal violation, usually citable as a misdemeanor, of the weight law, NRS Section 4, Chapter 484.757 on overweight, could result in a fine of $60 per thousand pounds for excess weight without the language just addressed.
In another chapter, NRS Chapter 482, an administrative penalty was addressed. Currently, when a citation was issued, justice courts had the right, and often exercised it, to reduce the fine level. The result would be a penalty that was not painful enough. When the auditors had first approached Mr. Capurro, it was to express their concern about the purpose of the language. They saw it as unfair that a maximum fee based on the legal maximum load would make it impossible to impose any penalty for overweight that would exceed that amount. Because the permit was a privilege, the bill under consideration provided leverage against those truckers who consistently exceeded the weight limits without experiencing any penalties. The permit would not give permission to exceed the current limit of 129,000 pounds; it would allow for a penalty imposition much like an administrative penalty. On one end you would have the criminal penalty issued by the Nevada Highway Patrol for the overweight; on the other end, if A.B. 83 were to pass, there would be the option of having an administrative penalty imposed. Mr. Capurro stated that he hoped, next session, to address administrative penalties in other chapters of NRS.
Assemblyman Carpenter referred to the loads being hauled out of mines. What he believed was happening was that some of the haulers regularly ran with a weight that was far above the permit weight of 129,000 pounds. It seemed important, he stated, that an individual company cited more than three times for hauling loads above the maximum weight within a year would not be allowed to haul for a suggested 30 days. The huge amount of weight hauled would surely seem enough to damage the highways, he speculated. It was now cheaper for companies to get the tickets and pay the fines than it would be to attend to the weight and follow the law. The trucks had put a terrible strain on the road systems, especially the secondary roads.
Mr. Capurro fully agreed with Mr. Carpenter and included Mr. Carpenter’s concerns in his arguments in favor of the amendment to A.B. 83. That permit to haul was a privilege, which meant that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) could actually remove that permit from that offending individual. That would be a severe penalty. The DMV had not done that, and Mr. Capurro did not know what the DMV parameters were to require removal of a permit. That could certainly be handled administratively. There was also a provision in the law regarding fines that stated that DMV could force a company or hauler to off-load part of their load. The effort was to strengthen what was there to be sure that, when the law was violated, the resulting penalties would be painful financially.
Mr. Carpenter stated that, if it were in the statute, companies would pay attention.
Mr. Capurro again stated that the authority was already vested with the Department of Motor Vehicles. He would suggest that the DMV be encouraged to look more closely at the regulatory process because, between them and the Department of Transportation, all would have the same concerns for highways.
Chairwoman Chowning restated that an amendment was on the table and that she would accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 83.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall and Mr. Collins were not present for the vote.)
Mr. Carpenter then stated that, if a truck had a muffler on, the law, the way it was written, was working pretty well. In Elko and in other communities, there were signs that said, “Do not use Jake brakes.” In some communities, the communities themselves had put them up; in other communities, the Department of Transportation had put them up. Mr. Carpenter stated that he tried to understand what the amendment was doing, but to tell the truth, he said, he had a little problem with it. Maybe he would let it go, he said, and he would vote “no” on it.
Mr. Capurro addressed the concern of Mr. Carpenter regarding the use of Jake brakes. He asserted that there was no law currently on the books that made the use of Jake brakes illegal, especially one that was not muffled. A.B. 83 stated that, if the Jake brake was to be used, it had to be muffled. That would result in a far lower decibel rating as indicated by the handout Committee members received. Again, by passing the bill, a state law would exist that required a muffler if Jake brakes were to be used.
Chairwoman Chowning confirmed that Assembly Bill 83 had been passed as amended. She then reopened the work session on Assembly Bill 30.
Assembly Bill 30: Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-67)
The Committee members now had the amendment to refer to which had been discussed many times (Exhibit J and Exhibit K). The sponsor of the bill agreed to the amendment. The amendment stated “a person may receive a refund if the portion of the unused registration fee and governmental service tax is over $100.” Second, the person “has to be a permanent Nevada resident.” Third, the person must “provide documentation which in the determination of the department provides reasonable proof that extenuating circumstances exist.” The Chair directed attention to the bottom of the amendment; the extenuating circumstances included four situations:
The Chair was willing to accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 30.
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Carpenter stated that he would vote in support of the bill, as it was his belief that, if it raised a great deal of controversy after it was reported in the newspapers, the issue could be visited another day.
Assemblyman Claborn stated that he liked the bill in its original form, but he was liable to succumb to voting for it against his better judgment.
Assemblyman Gustavson believed that the existing law stated, when registering the vehicle, it was to be done within 30 days, as was the requirement for applying for a license to drive. He asked if the proposed bill would change the law except within that 30-day time period. A.B. 30 stated that one had to get one’s driver’s license within the 30-day time period and then get the vehicle registration taken care of.
At the request of the Chair, Ginny Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles, spoke of the two prongs of the bill. Much time was spent discussing the refunds, but the original part of the bill was to prohibit someone from getting their registration until after they had obtained their driver’s license. When applying for a driver’s license, people would be asked if they had any vehicles to register. The new bill would require that those vehicles be registered concurrent to receiving a driver’s license unless they signed an affidavit.
Hearing no further discussion, the Chair called for the vote.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. GUSTAVSON VOTING NO. (Ms. Ohrenschall and Mr. Collins were not present for the vote.)
Chairwoman Chowning declared that the motion passed. After hearing no further discussion, she adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Nancy G. Haywood
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman
DATE: