MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
March 13, 2003
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:33 p.m., on Thursday, March 13, 2003. Chairwoman 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.
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:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, District No. 26, Washoe County
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
Kelly Fisher, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Rick Eckhardt, Vice Chairman, Northern Nevada Confederation of Clubs
Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, Teamsters 14
Tom Keeton, Citizen
Gary Horrocks, Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclists
Tom Fambrough, President, Borderline Riders
Ken Singer, Executive Director, Motorcyclists for Nevada
Russell Radke, Confederation of Clubs of Southern Nevada, Motorcyclists for Nevada
Michelle Fambrough, Borderline Riders
Ken Kiphart, Motorcycle Program Administrator, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety
David Carter, Governor’s Advisory Board for Motorcycle Safety
Kathy Odynski, Assistant Dean, Truckee Meadows Community College
Chuck Abbott, Chief, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety
Clay Thomas, Administrator of Field Operations, Department of Motor Vehicles
Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programs Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Dennis Colling, Chief of Administration, Department of Motor Vehicles
Good afternoon. The Assembly Committee on Transportation will come to order. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll. Please mark Assemblyman Sherer and Assemblyman Goicoechea excused. They are in another committee hearing, and they will be back once that hearing is completed. Mark the others present as they arrive. Thank you. [Roll called]
Chairwoman Chowning:
Good afternoon, everyone. We have someone in Las Vegas. Sir, in Las Vegas, are you there to testify on A.B. 77?
Chuck Abbott, Chief, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety:
Madam Chairman, I’m Chuck Abbott, Chief of the Office of Traffic Safety, and I am here for A.B. 171.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. The first bill we are going to hear is A.B. 77, and that sponsor is one of our colleagues, Assemblywoman Angle. Assemblywoman Angle, if you will come forward. There are several people who have signed in to speak, and we will not be able to hear from all of these folks, but maybe they can all come up. Please make your testimony succinct. If it is a “me, too,” then just say, “me, too.” If you want to bring someone else up to the table, you certainly may. Please go ahead, Assemblywoman Angle.
Assembly Bill 77: Authorizes certain inserts in tail lamps on motorcycles. (BDR 43-220)
Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, District No. 26, Washoe County:
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Transportation Committee. [Introduced herself] I represent Assembly District 26, which is in Washoe County. I am here to present to you today A.B. 77. Assembly Bill 77 has been called the Motorcycle Blue Dot bill (Exhibit C). The Motorcycle Blue Dot bill is about tail lamps on a motorcycle that may contain a blue or purple insert. A.B. 77 was requested by motorcycle constituents of mine. Some of them are here in the room, and they will be testifying.
I have passed out a packet for you (Exhibit D). The first part of A.B. 77 is in Section 2, part D, and this says that the tail lamp on a motorcycle may contain a blue or purple insert. The second part is Section 4, subsection 3, and it says that the tail lamp on a motorcycle may contain a blue or purple insert that does not exceed 1 inch in diameter.
Other states have similar laws. In your package, you will find a law from Minnesota Statutes (Exhibit E) which provides that motorcycles may display a blue light up to one inch in diameter as part of the motorcycle’s rear brake light. The second law is from Washington and also provides that a motorcycle may contain a blue or purple insert of not more than one inch in diameter in the taillight.
The current practice on lights is that in Nevada you can have a taillight on the back of a motorcycle, but it must be red and visible from a distance of 500 feet. Nevada allows the use of the blue lights only on the front of emergency vehicles currently, to better identify these vehicles to approaching traffic. The reason that we are requesting the blue taillight insert is for safety. It continues to be the main concern of motorcycle riders. They want to know, “Is my cycle visible to other motorists?” They do not want to be run over, and that is the main concern.
[Mrs. Angle, continued] It is difficult for motorists to see or differentiate red lights in the tail lamp of a motorcycle from other motor vehicles, at night or in stormy weather. You might think that that is a car with a tail lamp out or something like that, and you might not be able to see that that is actually a motorcycle. For their safety, they want you to know, “I’m a motorcycle.” Also, by allowing blue or purple inserts, visibility and distinctiveness of the motorcycle is greatly improved, much as the third brake lamp indicator does for motor vehicles. So again, the purpose of A.B. 77 is motorcycle safety.
Other states saw the need. Washington and Minnesota have changed their laws. Motorcycle riders like this law, and it is a law that we can live with. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am available for questions. I would like to introduce the two gentlemen sitting next to me. They have a demonstration of the blue dot.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you, Assemblywoman Angle. I think we have some questions before you begin, if you might.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Mrs. Angle, are you wanting us to make a decision on whether it would be blue or purple here today?
Assemblywoman Angle:
No. It can be blue or purple. Generally, I think most motorcyclists would rather have the blue dot. But I think these gentlemen here, since they are riding the motorcycles, would probably be able to answer that question much better than I. This just gives them a little latitude in the color. I think it will appear to be almost a purple color, even when you have the blue dot on the inside.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I will wait for the demonstration.
Rick Eckhart, Vice Chairman, Northern Nevada Confederation of Clubs:
[Introduced himself] I represent about 20 motorcycle clubs, and we would like to see this law passed to be able to run the blue dot. The jewel is always blue that is purchased with the lenses. And what it actually does is turn the taillight a purple in color. If we could dim the lights. [Lights dimmed.] This is the running-light mode. Just like you have in your car when you turn the key on, your taillights automatically illuminate. We are going to go ahead and hit the brake light. Now you can see that the blue dot actually turns purple. Police officers have blue lights, whereas the blue dot actually turns it a magenta or purple, and it is much more visible. Also, you can see that the size of the taillight on a motorcycle is not as large as a car taillight (Exhibit F). Plus, a car has two taillights. So that is why we are requesting for this advantage to be seen by the blue dot. As you can see, it is much brighter. It attracts your attention more than the standard taillight.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is there someone here from law enforcement? Could we ask that you keep that on so that a person from law enforcement can come up and view that? The reason is because you said that it turns purple, but from here it distinctly looks blue. Thank you for that demonstration. That is very good that you have that for us to be able to see. Is that the end of your testimony, sir?
Rick Eckhart:
I think I am going to stay here just in case there are any motorcycle questions that you may want answered.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is the other gentlemen testifying, or was he there as your aide?
Rick Eckhart:
As my aide. Thank you.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. Are there any questions now of either Assemblywoman Angle or Mr. Eckhart? Mr. Carpenter.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I was reading some literature. The law now is that you need a red light that you can see from 500 feet. How far do you think you would be able to see the blue dot?
Rick Eckhart:
I believe that it doubles the vision. So, a thousand feet.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any other questions? Mr. Claborn, were your questions answered?
Assemblyman Claborn:
I think so. I am going to hear some more testimony, I am sure.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Mrs. Angle, it is interesting that the bill asks for a blue or purple insert, and yet the testimony only stated blue. Is it necessary to have the purple?
Assemblywoman Angle:
Rick is telling me no. The blue would be just fine.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. And the word “insert” makes me wonder. We have had many, many bills that have asked for additions to a manufacturer’s design. Does this word “insert” interfere with the manufacturer’s warranty or any other aspects of the design of the tail lamp or light? What is the correct terminology, Mr. Eckhart?
Rick Eckhart:
Yes. Taillight. And actually, all of the taillight lenses, probably 80 percent of them, are available with the blue dot lens already in them. So it does not alter the manufacturer’s DOT rating.
Chairwoman Chowning:
If it is an older one, then what does one do?
Rick Eckhart:
One would actually drill the taillight, and then they have the inserts that would go in there. A lot of the classic car people also like them, because some of the older classics have smaller taillights, and they also like to be seen so they do not get rear-ended.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So the drilling does not interfere with the taillight in any way?
Rick Eckhart:
Structurally, no.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So it is still safe?
Rick Eckhart:
Yes, ma’am.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. Mr. Carpenter has another question.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Is the light coming from this blue light, is it actually hooked up to the electrical system, or is it just reflected off of the light bulb that is in there?
Rick Eckhart:
Yes, sir. It is just reflected off the light bulb that is already in there.
Assemblyman Claborn:
If this bill is passed, does that mean that every motorcycle is going to have to get this blue insert in the taillight?
Assemblywoman Angle:
No, Mr. Claborn. The language is all “may.” They may do this if they want to. It is not a mandatory requirement.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Chowning:
You are welcome. Yes, I was going to say page 2, line 29, and page 4, line 6, both say “may contain.” The only thing that it does stipulate is that it cannot be any larger than an inch in diameter. We will take some more testimony then. Ms. Angle, if you want to have other people come up to the table, so they can speak quickly.
Assemblywoman Angle:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, Teamsters 14:
I have another bill to testify on in the Senate Transportation. Thank you for your indulgence. When I first heard of this bill, I kind of rolled my eyes a little bit. I discovered since that this does have safety benefits. Gary Wolff, for the record, representing Nevada Highway Patrol Association, Teamsters 14. I did check with my law enforcement colleagues on this bill. Apparently, there is absolutely no problem with any of them as far as doing this. I just got through talking to Stan Olsen downstairs, from Las Vegas Metro. They do not have a problem with it. If it is a safety issue, we certainly support it. I do not have all the facts, but I did want to reiterate to the Committee that none of us have a problem with it, at least none has been reported to me. Thank you.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. What they had stated to me was that once the brake lights went on, that the blue turns more of a magenta or purple color, so that they did not have any problem with that. But since it stays really blue, have you gone over that with them?
Gary Wolff:
No. This is the first time I have seen the experiment. What I envisioned, you would have a red light, and then you would put a blue reflector over it. So when the red goes through the blue, it would turn purple. That is what I thought was happening. I did not realize they were going to drill a hole, and I do not think that hurts anything. What I saw was still blue. You may have a problem with the law as far as police motorcycles have blue. I really have not researched it that deep, but even what I saw there, it does have blue in the back. No one here from the Highway Patrol is here to oppose this. I have asked everybody if they had a problem with these little blue reflectors on there, and nobody seemed to have a problem. I was in this business for 31 years, and I do not see any big problem with it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I think what we would like to do is ask those people to reiterate that point to both the sponsor of the bill and to this Committee. So they can do that. After the meeting, Ms. Angle and I will confer on that. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Wolff. Go right into your other hearing. The next people who wish to testify, please come forward.
Tom Keeton, Citizen:
[Introduced himself] I am a motorcycle rider. I live here in Carson City. I am in support of this bill. I think it is a great help to Nevada’s motorcyclists to be more visible at night when they are often very much at a disadvantage. They are already at a higher risk. We like conspicuity at night. People cannot see us very well. Many times we try to flash our rear taillight when we are coming to a stop to alert people. It is still a factor of not seeing us well. Anything we can do to enhance our visibility, especially from the rear, will be important to us. I can remember seeing these lights many years ago as a small boy in Iowa. You can see them for a great distance down the road.
Blue is the color you see from the farthest distance; I remember that from my Air Force studies. Anything you can do to give motorcyclists an opportunity to be seen, especially in a heavy traffic situation — Imagine Carson Street, dark, and seven or eight cars are in a line and trying to stop. That blue light can make it very clear that there is a motorcycle in front of you, instead of my Mustang, which has three lights across the back, and might hide this gentleman to my right if he was coming to a stop. So I really believe this is an exceptionally good idea, and it does not cost anything except to the motorcyclists. I definitely support it, and I hope you can report it out and get it to the Floor and passed as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any questions of Mr. Keeton? Mr. Knecht.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Mr. Keeton is a bit modest. He says he is a motorcyclist; he is also a motorcycle safety instructor. Is that right?
Tom Keeton:
That is correct, but I do not speak for that organization.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I understand. But you have qualification, knowledge that you impart as a safety instructor. In your view as just one safety instructor speaking for himself, this would be advisable?
Tom Keeton:
I think it is very advisable.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Mr. Keeton, we are here today in regard to safety for motorcyclists with this taillight. Why not make it mandatory?
Tom Keeton:
That is probably beyond my purview. I would like to see it, yes. But I hope that we can get enough people doing it. I think you will have more than enough motorcyclists who will go for this, because we all know it is a greater enhancement of visibility. The factories will start to put it on, and that way it will make it easier, once it is allowed. If you want to make it mandatory, now you are asking somebody to definitely spend the money for it, and they may not want to. I prefer to leave it a choice of the rider. Most of the riders I know are quite responsible.
Assemblyman Claborn:
If it is for safety, we make all kinds of bills that pass in regard to safety. I want to go on record here that I support the bill, because it is in regard to safety. I will always support bills for safety.
Tom Keeton:
If you would like to make it mandatory, I certainly have no objection.
Gary Horrocks, Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclists (NACM):
[Introduced himself] The NACM has always supported voluntary rider safety training programs and driver awareness programs. A.B. 77 will help motorcyclists identify themselves in the driving environment to help prevent accidents. We support A.B. 77, and we urge unanimous support.
I bring to your attention, and the instructor touched on it a little bit, you are starting to see blue headlights. Your eyes do better perceive a blue light than any other color of the spectrum, so it is a safety issue. We would like it to be voluntary, because just as some of us choose to wear full leathers and full-face helmets, there are some people who would not like to have that item added as a mandatory law onto their motorcycle. It does have to be drilled in.
In the 1930s, a lot of U.S. manufactured automobiles carried the blue dot, because there was a limited amount of voltage available and a limited amount of candlepower available. They found that the blue insert was a way to help improve the visibility from the rear of an automobile. Thank you very much for your time, and I am available for any questions that you have.
Tom Fambrough, President, Borderline Riders:
[Introduced himself] I am president of Borderline Riders. It is a Christian motorcycle ministry. When you hear about most accidents, the drivers always say, “I didn’t see him.” This taillight will make them see us, and I would really appreciate it if you would pass this, because it keeps us safe. Thank you.
Ken Singer, Executive Director, Motorcyclists for Nevada:
[Introduced himself] Unlike Assemblywoman Angle, my presentation comes without sound effects, so I will leave that uniqueness to her. I do want to lend our support on behalf of Motorcyclists For Nevada to A.B. 77. The basis for this legislation, which is very safety oriented, is really twofold. Any addition to a motorcycle is not merely a cosmetic accessory, but something which adds distinctiveness and uniqueness from a safety standpoint that will provide greater visibility and attention directed towards a motorcycle from another motor vehicle. This is certainly a worthwhile piece of legislation. It will certainly increase the visibility and make drivers more aware and focus more on the fact that they are following behind a motorcyclist. We are going to lend our support very strongly to this bill. Thank you for your time.
Russell Radke, Confederation of Clubs of Southern Nevada, Motorcyclists For Nevada:
[Introduced himself] I am the chairman of the Confederation of Clubs of Southern Nevada. I am also with the Motorcyclists For Nevada, and I am the president of the Soldiers For Jesus Motorcycle Club. I have been riding for about 30 plus years. Anything that can enhance the safety of a motorcyclist is needed. If it saves one life, it is worth it. I am for it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. We do not see your name that you signed in, so could you please spell your last name? [He spelled his name.]
Michelle Fambrough, Borderline Riders:
I just acquired a license in the summer of 2002, so I am a fairly new rider. I am for this bill because I want to be seen as best as possible, because I am a new rider. I want all the protection out there that I can possibly receive from the outside, because I have to ride like I am invisible, like I was taught in the motorcycle safety class. I am a vice president of a motorcycle ministry as well. We are a riding ministry, so we are always on the road, and I want to be seen.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. Are there any questions? There are none. We will close the hearing on A.B. 77, and we will open the hearing on A.B. 171. The sponsor is one of our colleagues, Mr. Gustavson. Please continue.
Assembly Bill 171: Revises provisions relating to Program for Education of Motorcycle Riders. (BDR 43-975)
Assemblyman Gustavson, District No. 30, Washoe County:
[Introduced himself] I am here to bring to you A.B. 171. On my right, I have Dave Carter, who is with Desert Motorsports in Las Vegas, who requested this bill, and he will be speaking in a moment. First I would like to introduce Ken Kiphart with the Nevada Rider Motorcycle Safety Program. He will explain why this bill was requested. If you have any questions, they will be happy to answer them for you. Then we have one person in Las Vegas and a few more here that would like to speak. I will turn it over to them.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. Please go ahead and identify yourself.
Ken Kiphart, Motorcycle Program Administrator, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety:
[Introduced himself and provided notes (Exhibit G).] I have been training motorcycle riders in the state of Nevada since 1978. In 1990, the Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcycles and the local college in Las Vegas approached the Legislature to create a bill to use model legislation that was developed by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation to establish a rider education program in the state. In 1991, it went to the Legislature based on 1990 prices. One of the things established in the bill was the tuition cost that was the maximum cost to be established for the course.
At the time the bill was drafted, there were three independent training sites in the state. At that time, it was Clark County Community College, Western Nevada Community College, and also Truckee Meadows Community College. Before the program started, they charged $79 for the class.
In the 1991 Legislature, the Nevada Rider Motorcycle Safety Program was established and placed in the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety within the Office of Traffic Safety. The program did not really start operation until 1993, as it developed funds to do business with. When we began operations, we had 2 training ranges, 3 sponsors, and 5 instructors; today there are 4 training sponsors and 15 training sites all throughout the state.
The program and its sponsors have received numerous awards. The state program has received two outstanding program awards from the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. Both Truckee Meadows Community College and the Community College of Southern Nevada have also received national awards from the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, as well as two motorcycle dealers, Desert Motorsports and Kawasaki Las Vegas, for direct support of the program.
[Mr. Kiphart, continued] The tuition issue involves mainly inflation and the economy. In 1990, the price of gasoline that the college paid for was $1.08. You can go outside right now and we will see pumps that are at $2.00 for a gallon. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) in 1990 was $130.7, and at the end of 2002 it was $179.9 — a considerable jump in the CPI. According to the 2001 annual report of the National Association of State Motorcycle Administrators, the average tuition charged in 2001 nationwide was $118, with a high tuition in Massachusetts of $249, and a very low cost in Illinois of zero. They have a different funding level, obviously, than we do. The national average for instructor compensation in 2001 was $334 for a class. In Nevada right now, the average compensation for an instructor for the weekend is $283. The training sponsors need an opportunity to collect tuition that exceeds the $100 cap that is currently imposed by NRS.
Speaking only about the classes offered directly through the State Program Office, hard cost for me to go to a rural town in Nevada to teach a class is $1,100. There are other costs, of course, associated with that: reproducing, postage, and what not, for a class of 12, which is the maximum number of students I can put in a class. That means I realize a hard profit, if you would, of $100, which does not make things work. We have overhead to pay as well.
The colleges have their own issues, as well. The urban areas are serviced mostly by the community college. They have their own overhead issues. They have registration staff that has to be compensated, building rental, sometimes we have to rent ranges. All of these impact the ability to do business. More importantly, it does not allow the opportunity for the sponsors to plan to expand. Right now our demand for the course is considerable, and we need some ways of acquiring new equipment and new training areas.
As you can probably figure, buying motorcycles, maybe paying rent for ranges, and also keeping more instructors on line are very important. Without an increase in the limits that the sponsors are allowed to charge, we are going to have some problems down the road.
[Mr. Kiphart, continued] On a second issue, the most viable assets that the program has are the instructors. These are the people that pound the pavement every weekend for that $283 and live with the environment. They are our centerpieces. Right now we have 53 active instructors all over the state. In 2002, we provided 221 motorcycle classes all through the state. Each one of these classes needs two instructors to train. That means that each instructor, on average, would have to teach at least nine classes every year. The problem is that being an instructor is not a full-time job. It is almost a volunteer thing. They have families and other jobs that they have to attend to. Having a pool of instructors that we can use to train is paramount to us. Some of our instructors out of these 53 are actually deployed in the military now, so our pool is reduced, like every other work force in the state.
As the sponsors attempt to fill their instructor rolls on their schedules, they have trouble every semester making sure that they have enough instructors, sometimes calling three or four days before a class meets, begging someone to give up their weekend with their family to come teach. To keep up with this demand, the program offers instructor training twice a year, once in the north and once in the south. The instructor-training program is pretty arduous. It is nine days long. The success rate varies with the person’s desire to be there, because it is pretty intense and the objective, training the person to ride a motorcycle safely, although fun, is very important to us.
Part of the problem we have encountered is that people who take the course, as weekend riders, are so enthused by the instructor’s demeanor with them and how fiery the instructor is and how he develops skills in people that have no skill when they arrive amazes people, and they want to be part of the action themselves. They want to be an instructor. We have a state law that requires a person be endorsed as a rider for two years to be eligible to be an instructor. That is a little cumbersome for us. We lose a lot of people that want to be instructors because of this two-year requirement. We tell them to call back in a couple of years, but we very seldom hear back from them. I would venture to say from the phone calls I field in my office that out of every five people that call up inquiring about instructor-level training, two of them are prior students that I cannot accommodate, and I lose them because of that.
The year 2002 was our worst year for attracting instructors. We only received 30 inquiries statewide from all the motorcyclists who were out there. When we responded back with letters and class dates and schedules, we only had nine people that were interested out of the whole state. Part of that problem is because of the prequalifications we have established now. So I think adjusting the previous licensing requirement to one-year experience will greatly expand our potential for pools of instructors.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I do not recall your saying the organization you are representing.
Ken Kiphart:
I represent the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Public Safety, Motorcycle Safety Program.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you very much. You said that it is absolutely necessary to raise this fee to $150?
Ken Kiphart:
Yes, ma’am. I believe increasing it to $150 allows the sponsors to charge a little bit more. Like I said in the beginning of my testimony, when we started the program we were at $79. It has taken them, I would venture to say, about eight years to reach their cap, and they are there. The inflation is just eating everybody up alive.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Maybe the department is going to come up with the backup material, so that the Committee can see exactly why and what the increase in the fee is going to be used for, what the projected expenses are, what the projected numbers of people they think are going to be taking the course. If someone else in the department is not, would you please provide that for the Committee before we take action on it, so that we can review those figures?
Ken Kiphart:
Yes. If I can make one more statement about that. The sponsors are not just simply the department. The department manages the program and provides oversight and does rural training in places like Empire, Ely, and Elko. But by and large, the community colleges are the people that charge the money in the urban areas of Las Vegas, Reno, and Carson.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That request will be out there to all of the people involved. We do not care who gives us the figures and the backup, but someone needs to get that to us. Thank you.
David Carter, Governor’s Advisory Board for Motorcycle Safety:
[Introduced himself] I am a member of the Governor’s Advisory Board for Motorcycle Safety. I am here in that capacity. One of the issues that we are constantly discussing in our board meetings is the fact that we do not have the capacity to train everyone who would like to take the courses. The education program is extremely popular. It is extremely useful. In order to expand the capacity of these programs to train Nevada riders and aspiring riders, we have to get more capacity out there.
Discussing this with Mr. Kiphart, who is a legitimate authority on this subject—he has been involved with this program from the very inception and has been very involved and in the driving force—we came up with these two small adjustments to the governing statute. It increased the fee cap to expand the pool of available instructors in order to achieve that objective. I believe it does those things in a reasonable manner, and I hope we can count on your support.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. Committee members, are there any questions of either Mr. Carter or Mr. Kiphart? Mr. Carpenter.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Mr. Gustavson, I just have to ask this question: Are you going to vote for this fee increase?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I was wondering who was going to bring that up. I feel it is justified, because it is an inflationary measure, basically. I know it shocks people that I support a bill that has a fee increase.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Are there any other questions of any members of the table? There are none. Anyone else who wishes to come to speak on behalf of this measure, please come forward.
Mr. Abbott, we are not going to forget you. We are going to get to you next. Thank you. Please proceed. We will let ladies go first.
Kathy Odynski, Assistant Dean, Truckee Meadows Community College:
[Introduced herself] I am an Assistant Dean at Truckee Meadows Community College. I have been associated with the motorcycle program since its beginning in 1990, and actually before then, with Truckee Meadows Community College. I do have some figures that I brought. I did not make a copy. I did not know that you would want specifics, but this could help. I will address those particular issues.
Looking at the program at Truckee Meadows Community College, we did start out at the cost of $79 per student, and we have increased the cost over the years to the $99 level. Our first year for going to $99 per student was in the year 2000. The figures that I have here show from 1999 through 2002, in terms of our revenue and our expenses. Just to give you the bottom line, when we first increased to $99, our net profit was $4,608. In 2001, our net loss was $2,487. This last year, we had a net loss of $3. We were quite pleased with that. I can have copies of this made for you.
You will see how our revenue has increased over the years (Exhibit H). The number of students has increased. We service over 400 students a year in the Reno area. Our program will start in April. It runs through October. Right now we are taking registrations for June. When the weather gets nice, probably about May, all of our classes will be filled, and we will start taking waiting lists for the classes. It is a very popular program, and I would imagine that this year, with the gas prices, we are going to see an increase. Unfortunately, we can only accommodate so many students, because we only have so much space, and we have certain rules and regulations that we need to follow in terms of how many students per instructor.
Ken did allude to the expenses. Of course, we have the instructor costs, and he did talk about the instructor costs — the average instructor pay throughout the United States — we are below that range. We would like to increase that. Materials are continually increasing in cost. We do have rental of space. That sometimes is a way of free registration for students to attend from a particular company, should they be giving us space for a range. We do have equipment costs. When we first started out, the program itself was able to supply us with motorcycles. Now the colleges need to do the upkeep and replacement of their own motorcycles. Just in this last year, we have had a 35 percent increase in the costs for this particular item.
[Ms. Odynski, continued] I hope that you will consider the increase in the fees, and that you will consider the bill in regards to the instructors. We are always looking for quality instructors, and we count on Mr. Kiphart and that area of administration to provide those for us. Thank you.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. If you would give your information to one of our secretaries, they can make those copies for the rest of us. That will be convenient. Thank you. Are there any questions of Ms. Odynski? There are none. Thank you. Sir, please continue.
Tom Keeton, Citizen:
[Provided letter (Exhibit I)] Madam Chairman, members of the Committee. Again, Tom Keeton. I am a motorcycle rider. I am appearing on behalf of the bill. I think it is a very good one. While it raises the fee to $150, I would point out that for people who spend thousands of dollars on a motorcycle, that is a relatively small expense. The reason for the money is to maintain a very high level of professionalism in this program.
With Mr. Kiphart and Mr. Utterback, who preceded him, we have won many awards from the Motorcycle Safety Foundation for the level of performance of these programs. I would like to remind you that each and every student we turn out is a safer rider and a better rider to have on the road and someone who knows what they are doing. It is important to keep that level. Many private schools charge two and three times this amount of money, sometimes even more. I know other states charge more. Other states have a higher cost of living and things of that nature, but I do believe that we have come to a limit and need some relief on top, as Ms. Odynski said.
It is worth noting, in one respect, that these fees are, in a sense, voluntary. It is possible for anyone to go to the DMV and take the motorcycle test at no charge whatsoever, and receive the same endorsement and a license that they end up with when they go through our class. Personally, I do not think they are as well-trained. Personally, I do not think they are as good a rider. But that is beside the point. This is almost a voluntary program when you look at it that way.
[Mr. Keeton, continued] As to the second point about instructors, we have many students as you see them go through, some of them are very well-qualified, and they have come back to motorcycle riding because they left it for a few years. They are very experienced. They have a lot to pass on. Some of them are just naturals. You just see it when they throw their leg over the motorcycle. They are just really good riders. The selection process, I think, is very rigid. I had to go through it myself to become an instructor, and it is not something that you go through easily and just pop out the door and you are an instructor. You have to take a difficult written test. You spend a lot of time. Gentlemen like Mr. Kiphart, and some of his minions, oversee us and make sure we know what we are doing.
I would also point out that this is not something you have a lot of fun at when you teach. You have to be dedicated to the idea of turning out safe, responsible riders, because that is the mission. When we get finished, we spend two or three days out on a hot range working with people, hopefully taking them from nowhere to where they are going to be safe on the road. We do not get to ride much at all, other than demonstrating some of the exercises they have to do. So we give up a lot of our own personal riding time.
The people who go through that process should not have to wait two years. One year is plenty of time. An avid rider will put in a lot of time in that one year. Then when they go through the process, they are weeded out if they are not acceptable candidates. We want to be sure the instructors are good people. They are all deeply dedicated, safety-conscious individuals. I hope you will consider A.B. 171 favorably, and give it your full support. If any of you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them now or at your later convenience.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. And we thank you for your dedication. I believe that it was one of our former colleagues, Assemblyman Val Garner, who was instrumental in putting this in place 13 years ago. He was from Assembly District No. 14 in Clark County. I believe that it did start at the Community College of Southern Nevada at the Cheyenne campus. Thank you. Are there any questions? There are none. Mr. Horrocks.
Gary Horrocks, Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclists (NACM):
[Introduced himself] As Mr. Kiphart mentioned to you, it is because of the NACM that the Motorcycle Rider Safety Training Program exists. The NACM believes the best way to ensure our safety is with the voluntary participation and training to improve our riding skills. Ensuring the proper funding to maintain quality rider training falls on us, the end users, and we fully support A.B. 171. I would also like to point out that the Motorcycle Rider Safety Training funds that are generated by this are dedicated funds, and we have vigorously defended those funds over the years from anyone trying to manipulate those funds. They do not become part of the General Budget. They are strictly for the motorcyclists’ use. I urge your support in allowing us to continue this quality program. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Chuck Abbott, Chief, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety:
[Introduced himself] Mr. Kiphart has already provided some excellent testimony on the impact of this bill. Let me just point out that motorcycle safety is a growing problem in the United States – in Nevada, also. The reason is that there are more riders and more bikes on the road. Consequently, there are more crashes and more fatalities. In the year 2001, we had 21 fatalities. Last year, we had 32. That is almost a 50 percent increase. On a nationwide scale, crashes caused by alcohol were on the decline. The only increase has been in motorcycle crashes, and it has been rising dramatically.
I would just like to point out that the only thing that this bill was asking is to raise the cap that we would allow the community college to charge prospective students. I would certainly think that we would negotiate with the college on a cost basis. In essence, we contract colleges to provide the training, and yet we tell them that they can charge no more than a certain fee. This bill would only allow us to exceed that $100 limit that was set back in 1990. If I may, also, could I ask you to clarify what you would like us to provide in regard to the impact on the department?
Chairwoman Chowning:
Yes, sir. Any time there is a raise, or any type of request for a fee, we need to know what supports that request for the fee or the increase in the fee. We just need to know what the projections are. For instance, one of the gentlemen stated that it cost him about $1,000. If my memory is correct, there were approximately 12 people in the class. So it would seem that $100 times 12 exceeds the cost of the class by $100. It is that kind of information that we need to know: What the costs are, what the money is going to be used for, and how many participants will pay that money. Do you understand?
Chuck Abbott:
I think I have it now. We will work on that and get that to you right away.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. We do have another question for you, and that is regarding the second page. Do you agree, also, that the qualification of the instructor would be sufficient for this public safety course if the period of the driver’s license being held is reduced from two years to one year?
Chuck Abbott:
Madam Chair, yes, I support that fully.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. Are there any other questions of Mr. Abbott? [There were none.] Thank you. We are glad that you are down there in Las Vegas where it is nice and warm today.
Is there anyone else in Las Vegas or in Carson City who wishes to speak for or against A.B. 171? I see none. We want to thank everyone for coming forward. We always appreciate when citizens come to hearings and make their voices heard. There are some new people who came today. We want to thank you for doing so. We will close the hearing now on A.B. 171, and we will open the hearing on A.B. 177.
Assembly Bill 177: Makes various changes concerning registration of motor vehicles and special plates, placards and stickers issued to certain disabled persons. (BDR 43-1032)
Chairwoman Chowning:
I want to let people know that we will not be taking action on these bills today. If you want to stay through these DMV bills, do so, but if you do not wish to, you certainly do not have to. Thank you.
Clay Thomas, Administrator of Field Operations, Department of Motor Vehicles:
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Committee. For the record, my name is Clay Thomas, and I am the Administrator over Field Operations for the Department of Motor Vehicles. I am here today on Assembly Bill 177, which is a Department bill. The Department of Motor Vehicles submitted the bill with the intention of identifying areas within existing statute that could be amended in order to expedite our processes and thus make our customers’ lives easier.
The bill addresses four major areas: insurance verification; driver’s license and registration time frame requirements; lost, mutilated, illegible and stolen plates; and persons with disabilities. To expedite this process, I will get right to the heart of the matter. Sections 2 through 8 are definitions that pertain to the areas that I will be discussing.
To begin, I will start with Section 9. It deals with insurance verification. Since there is a lot of area to cover, I think the best way to do this is to give you a brief scenario of what occurs and what we are attempting to change. Currently, within the insurance verification area, an individual that is attempting to comply with the law—coming from out of state, for instance—comes into the DMV, has all of his documentation, pulls his Qmatic ticket, sits down, and waits. Eventually, his number gets called. On average, after 71 minutes have elapsed he gets up to the counter.
At that time, we look over his documentation. We notice that he has his emissions certificate. We also notice that he has his VIN verification. But what is missing is the insurance verification card. What happens at that time, we tell him he has one of two options. He can either go away and pick that up from his insurance company, which means that we will see him again shortly, or we offer him the option of contacting his insurance carrier while he is at the DMV. We give him the fax number, and we tell him where the public phones are. If he elects to do that, he then contacts the insurance carrier, waits in line, sitting down in the DMV until such time as they find his file and fax the information to the DMV. The fax machines at the DMV usually are very busy, and he may have to wait another hour, two hours, or three hours before that information comes in and we call him back to the counter.
[Mr. Thomas continued.] What we are attempting to do with this bill is an individual that comes in and is missing the insurance verification card—the actual card itself – we will allow him to sign a declaration in which he attests to and swears that he does have insurance on the vehicle. By so doing, we will process the information and register his vehicle at that time allowing him to leave with his plates, his new registration, and his new driver’s license.
If the individual has elected not to be honest and elects to sign the declaration without proof of insurance, we will catch him in our insurance verification program. At that time, we will take immediate action to suspend the plates, and we will charge him the $250 to reinstate. We believe this will expedite the process by not having the individual come into the DMV and have to wait an extended period of time if he does not have his insurance card, or not have to leave the DMV only to come back a couple of days later and stand in line through the whole process again.
What we are asking for is to change the language in this bill. We will just allow the individual the “one-stop shop” that we are after to handle the situation in as efficient manner possible to get him in and get him out. I will take questions from the Committee on this area.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Before you leave that subject matter, you said that you would verify that later in the verification of insurance process. How will you guarantee that that happens?
Clay Thomas:
Madam Chair, to answer that question, that is no different from our insurance verification program that we enact today. If an individual comes in to the counter today to renew his registration, does so, and then cancels his registration, we compare his registration information with the insurance company’s book of business that comes in. We do that monthly. So if the company relates that they have terminated their insurance, then we compare that against our records, and if we show active registration, we send the individual a card asking them to prove or to verify that, in fact, they have insurance. If the individual does this, hopefully, within 30 days, we will send the notice out to him asking him to provide the insurance.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any other questions from the Committee on this portion? Please proceed.
Clay Thomas:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The second issue is on Section 10. It addresses the issue of the change of address. We are attempting to align the time frames of both the driver’s license requirement—which they have 30 days from a change of address to come into the DMV and change their driver’s license—that is NRS 483.390, and bring it in line with our current registration process, which is NRS 482.283, which is currently at 10 days. Given this, the way it is currently written, the individual has to come in after he changes his address to notice us within 10 days, and then can come back 30 days later, or within a 30-day time frame, to go ahead and do his driver’s license. What we are trying to do is align the time frame so they can just do it all at once.
A side note to this is, technically, an individual can be in violation of the law under the registration statute if stopped by law enforcement because they did not do it in 10 days. But it would not be a violation of the law on the driver’s license side, because they have 30 days from the time they change their address.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So any time someone changes their address, they need to notify the department so their registration and their driver’s license may be changed? Do they have to stand in line in order to do that, or can they notify you via the telephone or in written form through the mail?
Clay Thomas:
Madam Chair, yes they can. We do what we can to keep them out of the office. They can “notice us” through the telephone, or they can do it through the mail. They can also pull the form off the Web site and mail it in to us. For an address change, that is the way we want to handle that. For a legal name change, an individual would have to come back into the DMV with the proper documentation we are required to see.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. Are there any questions? Go right ahead.
Clay Thomas:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The next item is Section 11. There are two items here. The first one just replaces the word “ownership” with the word “title” in NRS 482.285. The second issue addresses the lost, mutilated, illegible, and stolen plates.
As for the change in the word “ownership” to “title,” our documents are title documents on their face, or actually identified as Certificate of Title. The current law says “Certificate of Ownership.” We are attempting to have the language match the document itself.
The second issue, and I will give you another scenario, which deals with the lost, mutilated or illegible plates. You are driving around, and you are in a parking lot, and somebody backs into you and crumples your beautiful plate that you have had for many years and that you have loved, and it is no longer readable, or it is mutilated. What happens is you have to come into the DMV, you have to sign a declaration that says it was lost, or it was stolen, or it was mutilated, and here it is. That plate has been near and dear to you for many years, and you want to keep the same number, such as 000 ABC. By signing the declaration, we allow that to occur.
In addition, when you come in and notice us that you need to replace your lost plates, we would require you to register the vehicle for a 12-month period of time from the date that you came in. The problem with that is that some individuals like their date of expiration that they have. Some people might have it in May, and they use their refund check from the government from IRS to pay to register their vehicles. If they report it as lost or stolen plate, depending upon when they did it, we would have to change their date of expiration. We would carry forth the credit that was left, but we would have to change their date. What we are attempting to do here is, if an individual has the date of expiration that they like to use, we would like to go ahead and let them have that date of expiration. So if it is reported lost or as a mutilated plate, and there were only four months left on the registration, we would allow them to continue to have that and keep that date. Then they could renew four months out instead of a 12‑month period of time.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Pardon me, Mr. Thomas, but where does it state that? Is it just implied? It does not state that specifically.
Clay Thomas:
Right. That is all dealing with a substitute plate, substitute decal, or duplicate plate. It is on page 5, and it covers the area of approximately line 14 to around line 20.
The next item that is covered in this section has to do with a stolen plate. When you walk outside of your apartment complex, and you notice that your two plates are missing, you go down to the local police department and notify them that your plates are now stolen. You then come down to the DMV and ask for replacement plates. The agency is not allowed to give you the same number that you had previously. The reason for that is law enforcement has captured those plates and has entered them into their system as stolen. Therefore, we will issue you a different set or a different number of plates. In addition, what we are doing is keeping that same expiration date with the duplicate plate.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So, since the law enforcement officials have entered in that information, that will not cause a problem?
Clay Thomas:
By them entering that plate, that is why we cannot issue the same number to you. If your plate was 000 ABC, you reported it to law enforcement as stolen, the agency would not issue you 000 ABC again, because the plate is out there in a stolen status. What we might do is give you 001 ABC, but we cannot give you the plate that you originally had — only on stolen plates. On issues of lost plate, mutilated plate, illegible plate – yes, you can have your same number.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Mr. Gustavson.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
On stolen plates, I understand why you do that. That is perfectly logical and reasonable on stolen plates. Is there some way that we could amend this bill? A person who has a plate that is stolen, which happens to be a personalized plate with their initials, name, or whatever it might be, or especially a plate with a particular number, I am sure they would very much want to have that plate again. The question is if we could, after those plates are recovered—if and when they were recovered—could they get that number or that particular plate back?
Clay Thomas:
To answer that question, if I had a personalized plate that was near and dear to me, I would want to use it again. As long as that plate remains in an outstanding status, we could not do that.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
No, I understand that. But if there is a provision there somewhere that they are recovered—I do not know if you have to put that into statute or not—but I would like to have that available to those people if they were recovered.
Clay Thomas:
We would be more than happy to look at that. The next section is Section 13, which addresses the issue of the handicap plates. It is a pretty extensive section, but it deals with three areas: temporary disability, disability of moderate duration, and permanent disability. Basically, the law is the same for the temporary disabilities, which means a temporary disability is an injury that affects your ability to walk, and is not expected to last more than six months.
We have added a new section here, which is identified as a disability of moderate duration. That is an injury that hampers your ability to walk that will be longer than six months, but is not anticipated to be permanent. So if you have, for instance, a severe fracture of the leg, instead of having to come back into the DMV every six months to get another temporary placard, we would like to extend that up to a two-year period.
The third measure has to do with a permanent disability, when the doctor identifies that and sends us the documentation. With a permanent disability you are not asked to return to the DMV or supply the DMV, on a continuing basis, a letter from the doctor stating that you are still permanently disabled. What we are attempting to do is assist the customers that fall into these categories and make it as easy as possible for them without having them come to the DMV, return to the DMV, or go back to their doctor to get a notice time and time again, when in fact the disability is longer than six months or permanent in nature.
There is one other area here that deals with organizations. There is not much change, but it does allow the organization to transport individuals with disability of moderate duration along with those of temporary disability and permanent disability. That is on page 6, and it commences on line 38. It just allows the DMV to issue plates or placards to those agencies that transport those type of individuals.
The DMV is committed to reviewing, reevaluating, and reassessing both the internal and external processes in order to maintain our goal of providing quality customer service. These amendments will help the DMV in expediting its services, which will help in reducing customer wait times. Of course, this is a very important goal or objective for the DMV. Thank you for your time, and I will take any questions.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Mr. Carpenter.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
On people that have the placards that are not permanently disabled, or if they have to renew in ten years, do you send them a notice so they are aware of the situation that they need to come in and renew to get a new placard?
Clay Thomas:
Yes, that is correct. We do, in fact, notice them by mail, and we can deliver the placards to the individuals via the mail so they do not have to come into the DMV.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Further questions? There are none. We do want to applaud your efforts in trying to be more customer-friendly and keeping people out of the DMV offices. That is to be commended.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for or against A.B. 177? There are none. We will close the hearing and open it on A.B. 178.
Assembly Bill 178: Makes various changes concerning registration and titling of motor vehicles and records of Department of Motor Vehicles. (BDR 43‑473)
Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programs Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
[Introduced himself] I am here to present A.B. 178. This bill makes several changes that will help the Department improve and continue its services.
Section 1 in the bill gives the Department the authority to require a person to provide their legal name on any document that the Department uses in our course of duties. Currently, the Department only has the ability to require the legal name for driver’s license and vehicle registration. If I might provide an example of that and what we are trying to do. We are trying to make all of our transactions in our system under one name. Currently, somebody comes in and gives us “John P. Smith” on their driver’s license, and they come back and get a title on their vehicle with “John Smith.” They may register their vehicle under “Jonathan P. Smith.” We end up with three separate records in the system. We would like to have just one.
Chairwoman Chowning:
How will you know which one, until you have those series of documents come before you?
Jim Parsons:
What we would base that on is their driver’s license records, since we require legal documents to obtain that license.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So the driver’s license is going to be the key document? [Mr. Parsons agreed with that.] Everything else would have to match the driver’s license? [Mr. Parsons agreed.]
Assemblyman Carpenter:
In Judiciary, we have been talking about victims of domestic violence, and sometimes they try to keep their identity secret, or they do not want it out because of fear. Is there anything in your agency that provides such a way for them to have a driver’s license using another name?
Jim Parsons:
Currently, if they provide us a court document that authorizes a name change, we will do that for them.
In Section 2 of this bill, and Mr. Thomas spoke to a piece of this, we are requesting to standardize the definition of “Certificate of Title.” Regarding the bill drafting process, the definition was added to Chapter 481, which pertains to driver’s licenses and the release of information. We are requesting to amend this and move the definition of “Certificate of Title” to Chapter 482, which pertains to the titling of vehicles. The statute currently does not define “Certificate of Title,” and three terms are used throughout the statutes. These terms include “Title,” “Certificate of Title,” and “Certificate of Ownership.” We are trying to clarify and standardize it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So the rest of that on line 24 would be correct, where it says, “subsection 2 of NRS 482.245?” [Mr. Parsons agreed.] Are there any questions? That does not seem very difficult, according to Mr. Parsons. No questions.
Jim Parsons:
We try to make it as simple as possible.
[Chairwoman Chowning recognized Mr. Collins.]
Assemblyman Collins:
I guess you ought to try to help me understand this. Kathy and I, my wife and I, own a dozen vehicles. Some of them are under “Tom Collins,” some “C.W. Tom Collins,” some are “Kathleen Collins,” some are “Kathleen J. Collins.” So far, you have not busted us on the insurance provision but once, because the insurance on most of them is under our business name that we have signatures on. I am not going to get in trouble for eight different vehicles with eight different registrations and all that?
Jim Parsons:
We are not going to go backwards. This starts, I believe the bill says October of 2003, and we will go forward from there.
Assemblyman Collins:
On my renewals, would that be a problem?
Jim Parsons:
As far as I know, no.
Assemblyman Collins:
Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I understood that right.
Chairwoman Chowning:
If Mr. C. W. Tom Collins and his wonderful, lovely wife Kathleen Collins came in in the future with their business of XYZABC, they would have to insure their vehicles per the driver’s license plus the business name?
Jim Parsons:
No. Under a business name, we would just record it to that business. Section 3 allows the Department to release personal information relating to a driver’s license or ID card if authorization for the release is present. We are requesting to add the language that would state “except a photograph.” Prior to implementation of the new digitized driver’s license, this was not an issue, because the Department did not retain photographs. Now that the digitized driver’s license is in place, we capture and retain images of licenses, and the Department needs the authority to manage the release of information.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Will this be in compliance with the federal law regarding privacy?
Jim Parsons:
This was a recommendation from Legislative Counsel Bureau from last session that was missed in some of our cleanup language then. They said that we should put something in that allows us to control the digital image of a person and not give it to insurance companies and people requesting personal information.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So your statement is that this is not included in the federal law, this is just something that Nevada is trying to do to ensure privacy?
Jim Parsons:
I do not know that I can answer that for you, but I would certainly research it and get back to you. Section 6 will be responded to by Mr. Colling, Chief of Administrative Services.
Dennis Colling, Chief of Administration, Department of Motor Vehicles:
[Introduced himself] I am here today testifying on Section 6 in A.B. 178 and to respond to any questions about that section.
This section is being amended to allow the Department to be able to waive payment of penalties or fees, specifically in cases of a bad debt, where there are issues beyond the person’s control that are detailed in this section. The Department needs the ability to waive the penalties where appropriate. An example would be when the bank has closed the account inadvertently, and all your checks bounce. Right now, we do not have the ability to waive the fees and penalties associated with that, and it is not the customer’s fault. We would like to have enabling legislation here to allow us to do this. Thank you. I am ready for any questions.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is this any penalty or fee imposed by the Department, or those due to circumstances beyond the person’s control that occurred despite the person’s exercise of ordinary care, or that were not a result of the person’s willful neglect?
Dennis Colling:
Madam Chairwoman, that is correct. We have a number of instances that occur. We have had banks that have lost deposits, have told us in writing they have lost the deposit and that it is their fault that the check did not process. There are instances in here where we are not allowed, by law, to waive the penalties that have accrued. I believe that it is inappropriate for that citizen to be charged. An example would be NRS 41.620. Mistakes have been made there. There are no provisions within that at the current time to allow us to waive those fees, and we would like to be able to do that where appropriate.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. You are being very customer friendly. Mr. Carpenter.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I really like this. I just had to pay $500.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is this going to be retroactive to help Mr. Carpenter?
Dennis Colling:
No.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Sorry, but no. Please continue. Section 7.
Jim Parsons:
Actually, and I probably should have explained this at the beginning of my presentation, the sections that I am skipping are the sections where they have just placed the word “title” in place of “ownership” and those kind of things. I did not think it would be necessary to take the time to go through those.
The next section that has changes in it is being amended to allow the Department to change the numbering sequence for motorcycle license plates.
Chairwoman Chowning:
You are at Section 12, page 10.
Jim Parsons:
Yes. Currently, motorcycle plates can only contain five characters. With this scheme it is projected that we will exhaust combinations available around December of this year. We are requesting the language to say that the license can contain up to six numbers and letters.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Please tell us why you needed to delete the rest of that section, such as the combination with numbers, that you may substitute letters in combination with the numbers. Is that because you are changing it to characters, and that means numbers or letters?
Jim Parsons:
I believe that was done by the bill drafters. I think they are trying to simplify the language, just to say “a combination of characters,” which would include numbers and letters. That is the end of my presentation.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any questions from the Committee? Are there any closing comments? It is DMV’s wish to convey that the DMV wants to be warm and friendly.
Jim Parsons:
We would like to improve our services. Thank you.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak for or against A.B. 178? This has no fiscal note. There are none. Is there any other business to come before the Committee? There were folks with law enforcement who came into the Committee, but then they left. I will ask and put it on the record that the Committee will request Jim Nadeau with the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and Stan Olsen with Las Vegas Metro Sheriff’s and Chief’s Office if they would provide the information that we requested regarding A.B. 77. We are adjourned.
Kelly Fisher
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: