MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
April 1, 2003
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:34 p.m., on Tuesday, April 1, 2003. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada via simultaneous videoconference in Room 4401 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 Chairwoman
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:
Mr. Josh Griffin, Assemblyman, Clark County District No. 29
Mr. Joe Hardy, Assemblyman, Clark County, District No. 20
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Assemblywoman, Clark County District No. 8
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
Nancy Elder, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Clay Thomas, Administrator of Field Services, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
Denise Sell, Private Citizen, Las Vegas
Jim Gibson, Mayor, Henderson
R. P. Ellis, Owner, B&E Auto Auction, Henderson
Dan Wulz, Attorney, Las Vegas
Russ Benzler, Administrator of Compliance Enforcement Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
Ralph Felices, Chief Investigator, Nevada Department of Transportation
Lisa Foster, American Automobile Association
Jim Werbeckes, Legislative Advocate, Farmers Insurance Group
Wendy Simans, Private Citizen, Reno
Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles
Richard Daly, Business Manager, Laborers International Union of North America #169
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director of Operations, Nevada Department of Transportation
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Clark County
Jeanette Belz, Legislative Advocate, Associated General Contractors of American, Nevada Chapter
Debbie Smith, Fringe Benefits Representative, Operating Engineers Local Union #3
Chuck Abbott, Highway Safety Coordinator, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety
Dennis Baughman, Nevada Department of Transportation
Chairwoman Chowning:
[Chairwoman Chowning opened the meeting and asked the secretary to call the roll. Roll was called.] We have a quorum, and we will open with A.B. 324. We would like to welcome Assemblyman Griffin.
Assembly Bill 324: Revises provisions governing frequency of renewal of registration of certain vehicles and frequency of renewal of certain drivers’ licenses. (BDR 43-1097)
Assemblyman Josh Griffin, Clark County, District No. 29
The idea for the bill came from the pre-session Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees’ meetings. One of the budgets that I paid a lot of attention to was the DMV budget. As a growing state, specifically in Clark County, the demand placed on the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in terms of retail and customer service is overwhelming and, consequently, pretty expensive. I wondered if we could come up with some ideas to remove some of that pressure.
The idea behind A.B. 324 was to have vehicle registration renewals go from 1 year to 2 years and have driver’s license expirations go from 4 years to 6 years. Originally, I thought about making it mandatory, but when I learned the state can’t issue credit to people and the renewal has to be paid all at one time, I decided to make it optional. Some people will take the option of doing a two-year registration.
The second portion of this bill changes a driver’s license renewal from four years to six years. I think that will reduce the demand on the DMV. I did visit yesterday afternoon with the Department of Motor Vehicles. They are here to give better information. They indicated that the section of the bill that changes driver’s license renewals from four years to six years might reduce revenue to the DMV. The intention of this bill is not to reduce revenues but to reduce physical demand.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The basic goal of your bill is to relieve some of the work from the DMV, to make it more customer-friendly, and to offer people the option to renew every two years.
Assemblyman Griffin:
It is my understanding that, by law, they would have to pay for those two years up front.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We just passed another bill out of this Committee that will find its way to the Floor sometime this week. That bill does not allow the DMV to issue any refunds except in very rare circumstances. Are you still comfortable doing this, and would the people realize that if they pay for two years and move out of state that they will not get a refund?
Assemblyman Griffin:
If that is the will of this Committee and this Legislature and we think that is appropriate public policy, this should not be exempted from the bill. Clearly, that could have an impact if someone is planning to leave in the next two years. I don’t think the bill should take away from anything we are trying to accomplish here.
Clay Thomas, Administrator of Field Services, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:
[Introduces himself.] I am here today to speak in qualified support of A.B. 324. We, as a department, appreciate Assemblyman Griffin’s willingness to work with the state and the DMV to find ways to expedite our processes and keep people out of our offices. We appreciate that immensely. The Department has taken a position of qualified support on this bill. We are in support of the 24‑month registration renewal but oppose the 6‑year driver’s license renewal requirement.
There is a graph (Exhibit C) that addresses the 6-year driver’s license renewal. Going from a 4-year to a 6-year renewal process will cause a loss of revenue for the state based upon the gap created every 5th and 6th year for the renewal cycle for individuals who are already licensed with the state of Nevada. The loss to the state for 2007 and 2008 is estimated to be $18 million. What that means is right now we renew every 4 years, so it is very cyclic. If you were to take 25 percent of driver’s licenses and carry them forward over a 4-year period of time, there is no gap. Going to a 6-year gap creates a 2-year time frame or gap in which that money is not being collected other than from first-time driver’s license applicants. We oppose that section of the bill.
In addition, I believe the Committee should be aware that the DMV has also submitted a bill, S.B. 213 that mirrors this bill as it pertains to 24-month registration renewal time frames. S.B. 213 does not contain a change to the driver’s license renewal period. The Department’s bill identifies the 24-month registration renewal time frame as a pilot program that is voluntary for the citizens of this state. The findings of this pilot program will be reported to the 2007 Legislature. Lastly, I believe the Committee should be aware that S.B. 213 has passed the Senate.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Your amendment needs to be in writing. Please tell the Committee where the changes will be.
Clay Thomas:
As a point of clarification on this bill, we are not offering any amendments per se, other than we oppose the language of the 6-year driver’s license that can be found in Sections 46 and 47.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I think I can speak for all the members of the Committee when I tell you that we are not ever happy about losing $18 million.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
If we were to have 50 percent less people renewing their driver’s license every year, then wouldn’t this relieve some of that workload? Wouldn’t this save money?
In theory it would, because you have individuals coming in every 6 years instead of every 4 years. Currently, an individual does not have to come into the DMV every four years; an individual can renew his driver’s license for an additional 4-year period of time without having to come into the DMV. With the 6-year time frame, fewer people will be coming into the DMV. However, the down side of that is, within that period of time, there is a loss of revenue of $18 million. If you did, in fact, reduce your staffing, I doubt that it would equate to $18 million. I am sure it would not, but there are people who have commercial licenses in the state that have to go into the office to renew regardless.
Clay Thomas:
That is correct.
Assemblyman Claborn:
When you renew your license, does it cost you an extra $10 to do the two-year program?
Clay Thomas:
If you were supposed to pay $10 to renew your license one year, and $10 to renew it the next year, you would just pay $20.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So there is no additional fee on top of that?
Clay Thomas:
That is correct.
Assemblyman Collins:
Don’t the plates depreciate, so the second year it might be less?
Clay Thomas:
That would be true with the value of a vehicle, but with these special plates, it does set out specific amounts that would have to be covered.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
That also would apply to the governmental service taxes, too, because they’re figured differently for every year, so that would have to be figured ahead of time. You would pay $200 one year, and $190 the next year, and combine those two, correct?
Clay Thomas:
That is correct.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is there anyone else here or in Las Vegas who wishes to speak on A.B. 324? [There was no one.] We will close the hearing on A.B. 324, and we will open the hearing on A.B. 406.
Assembly Bill 406: Revises provisions governing reporting of information by physicians to Department of Motor Vehicles concerning certain patients with epilepsy. (BDR 43-1166)
Assemblyman Joe Hardy, Clark County, District No. 20:
[Introduces himself.] A.B. 406 would allow for changes in reporting requirements that are currently made mandatory by statute. A physician must report to the DMV if his or her patient has a seizure disorder or loss of consciousness disorder. This bill would allow the patient to have responsibility, and the physician to have responsibility, to warn the patient of the ramifications of the seizure disorder known as epilepsy.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I am sorry, Mr. Hardy, and I don’t want to interrupt you, but I need to because Assemblywoman Buckley has arrived.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I am very willing to allow Assemblywoman Buckley to resume.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will come back to A.B. 406, and we will open A.B. 325.
Assembly Bill 325: Makes various changes relating to motor vehicles that have sustained certain damages. (BDR 43-222)
Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Clark County District No. 8
[Introduces herself.] I am pleased to be the sponsor of A.B. 325. Imagine buying a car, only to find that it veers suddenly to one side. You take it to a mechanic, and you are told that it was previously involved in a serious wreck, and it is not safe to drive. The title was clean. There was never any indication that it was in a bad wreck. It was never marked “salvage,” indicating that it was previously totaled. How can this happen?
Nevada’s laws on whether a title should be branded or marked salvage, or when a consumer should be told about very serious damage, are full of holes. The term “salvage vehicle” is not defined in our current law. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 487.110 assumes a “salvage vehicle,” vaguely defined elsewhere in our statutes, is damaged to the extent that an owner considers it uneconomical to repair. As a result, very seriously damaged vehicles can be and are sold with clean titles. Furthermore, there is no requirement in Nevada law that even the vaguely defined “total loss vehicle” have a “salvage or rebuilt” title before the vehicle is transferred.
Instead, “total loss vehicles” are transferred, not with the title “total loss,” but with a bill of sale branded “salvage.” This is a loophole that creates opportunities for abuse. There are photographs under the last tab of your booklet (Exhibit D). Sometimes a picture speaks a thousand words. These are photographs of cars that were resold with clean titles with the consumer never knowing what happened to them.
Assembly Bill 325 is an important public safety, law enforcement, and consumer protection measure for citizens of Nevada. Its history is rooted in A.B. 207 of the 71st Legislative Session, which I introduced last session, but it died in the Senate Transportation Committee. After last session, I went back to the drawing board, took a tour of B&E Auto Auction, worked with a number of individuals from the DMV, B&E Auto Auction, the insurance industry, and consumers, and really took the time to look at the issue in more depth. This bill is the result of all of that effort and the input of many who are very experienced in this industry. The DMV gave critical support information in the abuses they saw with our current laws. This bill has almost unanimous support from all of those individuals who worked on it this past interim.
If you turn to the bill itself, it establishes a classification for a nonrepairable vehicle. These vehicles are so damaged that they are not even a legitimate source of parts, and in the past they have been acquired by criminal elements that take the VIN [Vehicle Identification Number] off the car for use on stolen vehicles. Under this bill, such cars will never be driven, registered, or titled again, and their VIN will be destroyed. The bill then establishes a classification for “salvaged vehicle,” which is defined as a vehicle that is damaged to the extent that the cost to repair, excluding paint, is 75 percent or more of its fair market value; it also includes certain flood-damaged vehicles.
[Assemblywoman Buckley continues.] An exception is made for older vehicles, which, for example, might have been rear-ended and might need a bumper and a quarter panel replaced. Salvaged vehicles will be required to have a title branded as “salvaged” before it gets transferred again. This is important to any subsequent purchaser of the vehicle. Most importantly to public safety, these vehicles, after being rebuilt and before being registered for use again on our streets and highways, must be certified by a garage or body shop as to mechanical fitness and safety. It must also be certified that safety equipment, including airbags and seatbelts, are present and operate according to the standards of the manufacturers.
Surprisingly, neither state nor federal law requires this. To put some teeth into these requirements, consumers are provided a remedy if they are not told that a vehicle is salvaged before they buy it. Also, a garage or body shop that makes a false statement of a material fact in certifying the fitness and safety of a rebuilt salvaged vehicle can lose their registration or license. There will be testimony from someone who bought such a rebuilt wreck, and I also have some amendments (Exhibit E) that you have already received. There will be some minor amendments proposed by AAA (American Automobile Association of Nevada) that I believe are fine and will help the bill. The industry has been really good in trying to come up with a much better law for the state of Nevada.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We can’t take action on the bill today, but we will take action when we see the amendments, and it is also very important that everyone else who is here to testify on the bill understands what the concepts of the amendments are.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
The first amendment is on page 2, Section 1, lines 11 and 12. The purpose of this section is to amend the current law requiring the DMV to destroy certificates of registration or ownership for dismantled or junked vehicles. We are going to delete this because the DMV should be trusted to maintain these documents. They may need a paper trail if the VIN ever actually shows up on a stolen vehicle.
[Assemblywoman Buckley continues.] The next amendment is on page 3, Section 11, lines 26 and 27. This would just add the phrase, “or should have known,” concerning the disclosure of a salvaged vehicle. Public policy should encourage persons selling cars to learn and reveal the history of the vehicle. No one wants a seller to turn a blind eye to such serious prior damage. Criminal responsibility never comes into play unless there is, knowingly, the intent to defraud, so that would not be implicated here. Civil liability also comes into play if there is intent, which requires reckless behavior. We want to make sure that there is some kind of disclosure.
The next amendment is a minor change on page 3, Section 11, line 31. We would like to use the word, “consummating” instead of the word “finalize.” We want the disclosure of the salvaged vehicle done before a sale is finalized, whereby it gives a person enough time to change his mind. It gives someone a disclosure when they are close to signing on the dotted line. “Finalizing” is seen as ambiguous, but “consummating” is not.
On page 3, Section 11, line 40, we want to add the word “knowingly,” to make sure that it is clear that, for there to be a criminal violation, it has to be “knowing.”
On page 4, line 13, we want to clarify the intent as to allow a jury, rather than a court, to determine punitive damages because that is consistent with Nevada law now.
On page 5, Section 16, we want to delete “together with a secured power of attorney, and a reading of the vehicle’s odometer.” This language is inconsistent with federal law. On page 5 and 6, Section 17, the DMV is proposing an amendment that clarifies that the department may refuse to issue a registration if the garage person has made a false statement of material fact regarding salvaged vehicles. This has everyone’s amendments, DMV’s, insurance companies’, mine, and things caught from bill drafters. It would be easier for the Committee to consider all of these.
We have a rewrite on a couple items that are not clear, but the bill clearly sets forth what those are. The last change is not just minor in nature. It would add a new section that provides that, whenever occupant restraint devices, such as air bags that were present in the vehicle at the time they were manufactured, have to be replaced, it is done according to the original specifications of the manufacturer. There is a great Web site for those of you who are on your computers: www.aorc.org, which talks about all of the scams that are now going on with regard to airbags in rebuilt wrecks. They stuff pillows in them; they do anything they can to fill in the area where the airbag was already deployed. They don’t put an airbag back in, and a consumer never knows. This Web site shows instances throughout the country of this becoming an issue. This is the recommended national language to combat that consumer fraud.
[Assemblywoman Buckley continues.] In short, our statute is full of holes. The holes are allowing rebuilt wrecks to get on the street, causing people death and injuries and allowing people to purchase vehicles with their hard earned money, only to find out they didn’t get their end of the bargain; they got a rebuilt wreck instead. This bill solves some of those problems. We will never be able to anticipate every fraud that will occur. This will bring our statute into the age of consumer protection.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It is a great testament to you to have members of the industry here in support of the legislation. I spoke with several before session began, and I know that they were hard at work with you and the Department. That is the best way to have legislation passed.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Regarding the part in here that states a repairman or a garage owner would certify that it has been repaired, how much liability would he assume for that statement or that certification?
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I believe it would be no more than currently required; it is to the best of their knowledge since they are the ones doing the repairs.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I am wondering if the body shops are willing to assume that liability?
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I think that is what they are already doing now. If you take your car to have your brakes fixed, you are counting on your brakes being fixed correctly. If they aren’t and your brakes don’t work, then they are liable if they are negligent and you can prove that they were.
Assemblyman Collins:
I read about the ten-year-old cars in their various conditions, but I want to keep my wrecked car in my back yard because of sentimental reasons. Is that okay as long as I don’t reregister it? Can the owner keep one that meets those criteria to be junk with a branded title? Is that the point? The car wouldn’t have to be destroyed, right?
Assemblywoman Buckley:
In most cases the bill does not affect the individual, because most total loss vehicles end up being owned by the insurance company, the rent-a-car company, or the government agency, and they are required to bring in the title. If you were to ask your insurance company to let you keep the car for sentimental reasons, the title would still be required to be branded in case you changed your mind, decided to fix it up, and sell it, but not tell somebody it was in a wreck. That would be prohibited. We have one person who would like to testify, and I have provided copies of her testimony (Exhibit F).
Denise Sell, Private Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada
I am in support of A.B. 325. I am a single mother of two, and I work at Von’s grocery store. I had an older car that was paid off, and I had managed to save $2,000 as a down payment towards a new car. I went to a major dealership in Las Vegas where I was told I would not qualify to purchase a new car, but they would sell me a one-year-old Suzuki that had less than 7,000 miles on it. The salesman told me the car was “very reliable, was in good condition, had hardly been used, and was still under factory warranty with two years of factory warranty left.” On the day of the test drive, I noticed the car pulled to the left on occasion. The salesman assured me the car just needed an alignment, and it would be taken care of.
The day after I purchased the car, I noticed that the horn did not work. I returned to the dealership, and I was told that would be fixed when the alignment was done.
When I later took the car in, the dealership told me to take it to the Suzuki dealership for repair under the factory warranty. When I took it to the Suzuki dealership, I was told the factory warranty would not be honored because the car had been in a wreck. I learned the car had problems that made it unsafe to drive. I also learned the horn was not working because a wiring harness had been cut, and, as a result, the air bags would also not operate. Someone had removed the bulb from the dashboard warning light for the airbags. I was shocked to learn that I had been driving my two young children and myself in a car that was unsafe to drive.
The dealer who had sold me the car refused to take responsibility and, in fact, accused me of having driven the car into a curb. I am now involved in a lawsuit with the dealer, and the car has been repossessed.
Please pass A.B. 325. Someone should be required to look at rebuilt cars and certify that they are safe before they are sold to people.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We want to thank you for coming forward. It is because of people like you, who have the courage to go forward, that we are able to help protect all the consumers of Nevada.
Jim Gibson, Mayor, Henderson:
[Introduces himself.] With me is Mr. R. P. Ellis, the owner of B&E Auto Auction, 1239 North Boulder HWY, Henderson, Nevada.
We are here in strong support of A.B. 325. Over the last several years we have been concerned about the issues raised in public discussion and in legislative discussion. We share the views of Assemblywoman Buckley for additional legislation to close loopholes and further strengthen the statutes so that the traveling public and the purchasing consumer can be made safe and can rely on the system to take care of issues and risks that are not known to them. The fascinating thing about this process for us has been that the entire industry has gathered together and worked very hard. We support the objective and the specifics of what you have before you.
There are a couple of things we want put in the record today. We are aware, from Mr. Ellis’ business activities, that as many as 40 vehicles are stolen each day in Clark County, and those vehicles carry with them certain risks. We have heard some testimony about the T-Bird that ended up being sold by a tow company on a lien sale and got a clean title. The term for securing a clean title when there was a car accident involving a death is called “title washing.” That vehicle had no business being on the road. That loophole could be closed by the proposed legislation, which would prevent cars being sold in that condition.
We heard of the hundreds of vehicles that flowed into the state of Nevada following a flood in North Carolina and were sold to unsuspecting people only to learn, many of them learned, that great expense had to be incurred, in order to make those cars worthy of being on our roadways. Something needs to be done. There needs to be national title legislation. By enacting this bill, our legislation will be set up as a model for other states. The issues that come before motor vehicles are many, but this is probably one of the most important bills in terms of what the public faces.
There are a couple of loopholes: I mentioned the tow company loophole that would be closed by this bill. There is ambiguity in the current law that permits car rental companies, with vehicles involved in accidents, to market the vehicles in ways they currently do. This legislation would brand titles before the vehicles are removed from the state. They would require the branding of titles wherever they are sold. We are concerned that the licensure for those who purchase vehicles at auto auctions be reconfirmed. By requiring the use of salvage pools and requiring licensure from those who participate and purchase vehicles at the license pools in the state of Nevada, we can remedy the problem. For those reasons, we submit this overdue legislation that will serve as a model for other states.
Chairwoman Chowning:
This would not be the first time that Nevada has been part of enacting model legislation looked at by other states. We would look forward to this being one of them. When we go to national legislative conferences, it is with great pride that we can show legislation that has been passed in Nevada. Regarding Section 25, are you speaking in support of this section as well? Ms. Buckley stated that this is the final commitment between the seller and the ultimate customer, and they are agreeing to certify that this vehicle would be fit to be driven.
Mayor Gibson:
Yes, everyone is in agreement.
Assemblyman Collins:
A garage mechanic has more books to look at than a medical doctor. The state doesn’t recognize all of the standards they have. There are certifications for different models, different years, different cars, different categories, and all those things. I think the qualification of those certifications requires recommendations to recognize those standards. Those shops have been certified to do different repairs, and I think we should recognize some national standards in there.
Mayor Gibson:
We believe that each time a certification is required, the standards would be applicable. Judgments made about those certifications would apply in the context of the applicable standard. [Mr. Collins gestured that he was satisfied with that answer.]
Chairwoman Chowning:
I do know there are national certifications for mechanics and for garages. That is important, and you stated those standards would apply.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I still need clarification under Section 25. I am assuming the repair could be done by another entity, brought in before it could be registered, and it would be brought back to the shop for certification. How hesitant would you be if someone else repaired the vehicle and drove it in for inspection?
Mayor Gibson:
My reading of the proposal is that there has been a need to reach the casual transaction, because it can be some of the most egregious conduct that occurs. People like to repair their own vehicles and cut corners when they should not. While we can’t be all things to all people, and we can’t police everything, it was felt, by our group, that there needed to be the certification, irrespective of who did the repairs. The mechanic is not obliged if an individual comes to his place of business and asks him to certify a repair he made. If a licensed mechanic, licensed with the DMV, takes a look, he understands that he has some duty associated with doing the certification. I submit that Assemblywoman Buckley’s response intended that outcome, as well. I think the certification clearly can be by a party who did not do the work, but they can’t just “willy nilly” sign certifications.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I was really addressing how apprehensive you would be about certifying one that someone else had rebuilt.
Dan Wulz, Attorney, Las Vegas, Nevada:
I am an attorney who practices in Las Vegas and was at the meetings where everyone participated and worked on drafting this. I just wanted to make myself available for questions if there are any.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any questions? [There were none]
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:
With me is Ralph Felices, Chief Investigator for NDOT, out of Reno. He is the one who actually worked with Assemblywoman Buckley, Mr.Wulz, and the insurance industry to get this bill in its final form. In general, we support this bill; it is a good bill. We do want to look at the amendments to make sure we do not have any further concerns with those.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Will you also address Section 25 in your remarks?
Ralph Felices, Chief Investigator, Nevada Department of Transportation:
[Introduces himself.] We are here in support of this bill. It is the culmination of a lot of work, e-mails, and phone calls. It goes a long way to unify NRS Chapter 487, to make it clear, and to bring it into statute uniformity. We all worked onthis very hard, and the Department would like to commend Assemblywoman Buckley for her efforts in making this bill what it is and recognizing the need for the consumer protection.
[Ralph Felices continues.] Section 25 is about the liability of the garage man. That is a legal question, and I don’t know if I can really state what the liability would be. It depends on a lot of factors, as most attorneys would agree. Their misstating something to the degree that it is an error would have to be properly investigated to see what liability they had.
Russ Benzler:
I think this goes to Assemblyman Goicoechea’s question. Currently, when a salvage vehicle is going to be rebuilt and restored to operation, garages require the owner of a vehicle to obtain an inspection from the garage. The inspection only covers two areas, the steering and the brakes. This new bill would extend that. Now they are talking about the overall fitness and safety of the vehicle.
Chairwoman Chowning:
By what standard would it be measured?
Russ Benzler:
I believe one of the standards he was looking at was the ASE (Automotive Service Excellence) standard. I don’t think we ever discussed what certification level would be required.
Assemblyman Collins:
That is why I brought it up. In a newer car, warranties are voided if they are not by a Ford dealership or Ford qualified, or whatever the make of the car is. You have to know how many mechanics work in a garage and what their certifications are.
Russ Benzler:
It does talk about the safety equipment required by the manufacturer, so somebody is going to have to contact the manufacturer/dealer to identify what, on a particular model, is there for the year and the model. As far as the safety, one of the obligations you have as a repairman is to make sure it is done safely.
Chairwoman Chowning:
What would the consequences be for that garage man or owner of a body shop? We were unable to get licensing requirements for garage men, and a lot of the reasons were because of the ASE certification. We do not have enough educational sources in our state to make that a requirement. With our current law, they can lose their license if they are in a body shop, they can be fined to a great extent, or they can have their bond attached. Is there anything I am leaving out?
Russ Benzler:
I agree. The biggest hammer is the fact that if you lose that registration, you are not going to be able to do business. You can’t sue for the cost of repairs, and you can’t enforce a lien. If you do continue to do business, you are going to be doing it for no compensation.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I hope that answers everyone’s questions. That really is the ultimate consequence and ultimate protection for the consumer.
Lisa Foster, Representative, American Automobile Association:
[Introduces herself.] We have appreciated the opportunity to work with Assemblywoman Buckley in developing this bill. We feel we have come up with something that provides a lot of protection for motorists and will reduce the number of dangerous vehicles on the road. I am handing out a minor amendment that Assemblywoman Buckley referenced (Exhibit G). I have discussed this with Mr. Wulz, and we would like to make some minor changes to Section 5, to more appropriately look at what insurance companies do to pinpoint the price of a vehicle. The amendment allows us to use any of the options that insurance companies typically use in developing the true market value for a car.
We are asking for the ability to not do all of these steps but to use the highest value of all the steps because it really adds to the cost of a claim. Each thing you do represents a significant cost. The one item I did not discuss with Mr. Wulz, but I did present to Ms. Buckley, is number four. Number four says that we would be able to use an independent computerized evaluation service used by the insurance industry to evaluate used motor vehicles. This program is like the ones called CCC (Certified Collateral Corporation) and ADP (Automatic Data Processing). This is what insurance companies usually do in determining the value of a vehicle.
Mr. Wulz thought, by allowing us to draw from each of these options, we would still be determining the best value of a car. When someone uses a Kelly Blue Book, it just gives you a range. If you use a service like ADP or CCC, you’re able to look at every feature on the car more appropriately. You can add the value of market features to the car. If there are problems with the car, you can subtract some of the value of the car. Rather than just looking at a range that would apply to every car of that year and brand, this allows insurance companies to truly price that vehicle.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will defer to Assemblywoman Buckley, so she can look at all of the amendments and make sure she is in agreement with all of them.
Jim Werbeckes, Legislative Advocate, Farmers Insurance Group:
[Introduces himself.] We are also in support of this bill. We worked alongside Assemblywoman Buckley over the interim to craft this legislation. It does a good job of identifying what a salvage vehicle or a nonrepairable vehicle really is. It keeps vehicles off the road that don’t belong on the road. It also takes away from the fraud factor of VIN-switching and that sort of thing. Farmers also concurs with AAA on their amendment to Section 5. The only other matter that Farmers would like to mention is on Section 16. There is a $10 fee currently being paid today. We want to make sure we can collect that fee and get the titles turned around in a timely manner.
Ralph Felices:
The bill has a fiscal note attached to it, and I think you have a copy with you (Exhibit H). We feel the revenue generated for the issuance of the salvage title through the insurance companies will more than pay for the production of these. We can look at the additional manpower needed to do this in a turnaround time that would be sufficient for them to process these vehicles quickly.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The fiscal note is $335,000 and $367,000 for a total of $702,000 over the biennium. With this fee, you think that would take care of the fiscal note?
Ralph Felices:
That is correct. The fees and the revenues obtained from this over the biennium will more than cover the additional manpower needed to produce these in less than the normal turnaround time.
Jim Werbeckes:
We are happy to pay the $10 fee in order to get them done in a timely manner.
Don Gustavson:
Since this does require a $10 fee, will it require a two-thirds majority vote because it is not stamped on the bill?
Jim Werbeckes:
It is a current fee today that we are already paying.
Chairwoman Chowning:
A.B. 325 is closed. We will reopen the hearing on A.B. 406 with Assemblyman Hardy.
Assembly Bill 406: Revises provisions governing reporting of information by physicians to Department of Motor Vehicles concerning certain patients with epilepsy. (BDR 43-1166)
Assemblyman Joe Hardy, Clark County, District No. 20:
I am going to bring up the most eminent Farmers Insurance Group representative.
Jim Werbeckes:
In regards to insurance and epilepsy, Farmers Insurance has no separate standard for anybody who has epilepsy.
Assemblyman Joe Hardy:
I think that is a powerful statement on the reality of epilepsy and, hopefully, that will clear up some misgivings that some may have about that particular medical disorder. In the way of background, the state of Nevada has mandated reporting patients with loss of consciousness or altered consciousness by physicians seeing or treating them. The physician currently notifies the Department of Motor Vehicles directly, although, in state statute, it is actually required to be notification to the State Health District, and then goes to Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles. After the patient remains free of episodes for three months, his or her driver’s license is then reinstated, after it has been automatically suspended.
Although the state benefits from timely reporting of the state’s medical conditions, there are potential problems for patients who do have medical conditions that affect their consciousness. They might avoid treatment if they are aware of the law. Knowing that their drivers’ licenses will be suspended, they are disinclined to report an episode, and, in fact, they sometimes avoid diagnosis. That can cause a serious potential harm to the person.
Other patients with known disorders such as epilepsy become less likely to be truthful about their condition. They can have uncontrolled seizure activity because they are relatively untreated. There is also distrust from the patient towards the physician, since he is obligated to act as the policeman. Some neurologists have accused those of us who are family doctors of not knowing the law, and there probably are some who don’t report, as the current statute requires.
[Assemblyman Hardy continues.] The Epilepsy Foundation of America, on mandatory physician reporting, has taken a stand since 1974 that states, “whereas epilepsy is not a communicable disease and poses no threat to the public health, and whereas the physician-patient relationship has long been legally recognized as one of privileged information, whereas any statute that requires a physician to report a patient with epilepsy to an agency of the government such as the state Department of Motor Vehicles, destroys the physician-patient relationship; therefore be it resolved that the Epilepsy Foundation of America takes the position that epilepsy should not be classified as a reportable disorder.”
That paragraph you can read as it is before you, and the third paragraph, which says, “Throughout history, persons with epilepsy have been subject to misunderstanding and prejudice of the nature of the condition. This misunderstanding has included the following assumptions:
These misunderstandings have continued to the present date despite major advances in medical treatment, which have allowed the majority of persons with epilepsy to obtain control of their seizures; hence, the insurance companies do not have a special rating for them.
Unfortunately, this attitude is still affecting many of our laws, including those that single out persons with epilepsy as needing special policing through mandatory reporting to the state. The vast majority of states have had a system of self-reporting for a long time. To the best of my knowledge, this has not resulted in any documented increase in accident rates. In fact, there are studies that suggest otherwise. Reporting requirements are not universal; other states such as Texas have no reporting requirements at all. There are currently only six states that require reporting. They are California, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New Jersey, and Nevada.
The suggested course would be, due to the problems with the current law, that reporting requirements should be abolished. The law may be changed to require the patient to be instructed by the physician not to drive for a period of three months or a rational time period, taking into account the mentioned variables and individual risk factors for recurrent seizure disorder. After that period of time, the driving privileges may be reinstated. The physician is to document that the patient was instructed not to drive, and the responsibility of complying with this instruction is that of the patient.
[Assemblyman Hardy continues.] Knowing there will be no mandatory recording requirement, new patients will more likely seek medical attention for their disorder, and greater trust will occur. I have before you proposed amendments from the DMV (Exhibit I).
Chairwoman Chowning:
Would you please tell us the intent and the goal of the amendments?
Assemblyman Hardy:
The amendments would allow DMV to have records that they would not be aware of if not for inclusion of the requirement in this law. Therefore, DMV would not have a way to find out the person is in violation from the driving instructions they received. This allows that to be stricken from the language and the reporting to take place confidentially that can only be used by the physician. Likewise, in looking at the statute, we would propose, on the last page of the four-page handout, that this is model statute language for confidentiality of the person reporting, either through medical records or in other ways, to the DMV.
Part IX deals with physicians who treat the patient in a way of evaluation. Their opinions, records, and reports would not add to the liability of the professional who is evaluating the patient. Thus, practitioners would be protected from liability in reporting a potential danger to the public body of the DMV.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Would the DMV use this as part of their regulations and not in the statute?
Assemblyman Hardy:
Yes, I would feel comfortable putting those statutory languages in place. This was from the American Academy of Neurology, the American Epilepsy Society, and the Epilepsy Foundation of America. You have three groups interested in seizure disorders and epilepsy, all concurring with these potential statutory languages. This is from a consensus statement in 1994 and presented to the International League of Epilepsy.
Chairwoman Chowning:
You would want this to be a part of A.B. 406, and not part of DMV’s regulation?
Assemblyman Hardy:
Yes, that is what I would prefer.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Why would you treat epilepsy any differently than other cases where a person loses consciousness? I think you can lose consciousness for a number of reasons including alcohol.
Assemblyman Hardy:
You asked a very pertinent question. This bill does not solve all of the problems. If you look at one of the studies done internationally, epilepsy was attributed to .2 percent of all auto accidents. Alcohol was 7 percent, and 85 percent were from other errors. That is why the insurance companies are not concerned with epilepsy. They are more concerned with other behaviors that are recognized as risk factors, such as smoking. They give a 1 percent discount to people who do not smoke. The simple act of fainting, or what we would call a “sinkable episode,” would be a reportable event. Many reports are generated to the DMV. There is a long list of things you could report.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
This bill only pertains to epilepsy. Will you continue to contact the DMV with any loss of consciousness by a patient with another condition, and then DMV does their job and suspends his driving license for 90 days?
Assemblyman Hardy:
DMV is fairly benign with most of the loss-of-consciousness issues. They are not punitive; that has been my experience in the medical realm. Many times we report by saying this is the problem the person has; this is the work-up that has already happened; and the person is not at risk anymore. That person usually does not have anything happen to his license.
Assemblyman Knecht:
On page 3, lines 16, 17, 18, and 19, you have the text, “Until such time as the physician or another physician informs the patient,” et cetera. What was your purpose in allowing for another physician? Is that just in case a patient changes doctors? Are you offering a substitute physician here or what?
Assemblyman Hardy:
Yes, the reality is the first seizure is a very traumatic experience. That person ends up in the emergency room. That emergency room physician has a statutory obligation to report that loss of consciousness. That emergency room physician then needs to counsel that person not to drive, to go see their doctor, and get treatment. Then that person has to see somebody else.
Wendy Simans, Private Citizen:
I found out about this bill by accident. I happened to be in Dr. Hardy’s legislative office. Through the course of discussions with his secretary, I found out he was proposing this piece of legislation. I am the mother of an epileptic, and I strongly support the heightened awareness. I want to commend Dr. Hardy for his sensitivity and for his intuition with regard to this bill. I work in health care myself, and I have been a health care provider for the last 34 years. It is very easy to be flippant until it hits a little closer to home. I had a ten-year intensive course in the changing verbiage, the changing awareness, and the evolution of epilepsy in this country. I am very pleased with what is happening in health care.
Through the course of my son’s development of epilepsy—and there is no family history of it, there was no ideology for this to occur. He was actually showing a horse at a horse show, and had what we call a space-out, which turned out to be a partial complex seizure. He was 17 years old at the time. All you men here will understand the ego of a 16 to 17 year old young man regarding his driver’s license, and the independence and the masculinity that it implies. At that age, this reporting law stripped him of it, and the first thing he was told was, “You will not drive,” versus, “You have a condition that we now need to work with, develop, and evolve.” It stuck in his mind, and it was kind of interesting to watch how that all transpired as well.
I think Dr. Hardy gave an exceptional overview of what has happened with the national presence of epilepsy awareness. I think he also gave you a snippet of the terminology change from “grand mal” to “petit mal” to more partial complex, to drop seizures, to any number of seizures that we tend to see in the industry today. I am here to validate his comment. Not only do I have a son who developed epilepsy, and we have chosen to call it a “seizure disorder,” because “epilepsy” has a stigma, but I also have several employees who have had it. They have had seizures, nocturnal seizures, which wouldn’t necessarily affect their driving, and they would not tell their doctors that they had seizures, because they didn’t want to lose their driver’s licenses and their ability to get to their jobs.
The type of a seizure they have should not affect their driving unless they are falling asleep while driving. Like Dr. Hardy said, only .2 percent of the accidents involve epileptics.
My neighbor, who had heart surgery, was told not to drive for two weeks, but he was not mandated not to. I just want to substantiate that there is a stigma, that individuals will not seek medical attention, and they will not report to their doctor that their medication is not working effectively so that add-on medications can be prescribed to stabilize it because of the stigma.
I also want to support his HIPA awareness, as far as patient confidentiality. I would like to request, as a mother of an epileptic and an employer of epileptics, who has a long time history in health care, that you really give this serious consideration, recognize the national standards, and recognize the courage of Dr. Hardy in bringing this forward on behalf of those populations.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Please tell the Committee what the acronym “HIPA” stands for.
Assemblyman Hardy:
It stands for Health Information Protection Act.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. We are going to ask someone from the DMV to come forward.
Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles:
The Department is in support of this bill with the amendments that Dr. Hardy proposed.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 406. [Mr. Sherer indicated he wanted to take action, but the Chair declined].
We will open the hearing on A.B. 444.
Assembly Bill 444: Makes various changes relating to transportation. (BDR 43-1098)
Richard Daly, Business Manager, Laborers Local Union169, Northern Nevada:
[Introduces himself.] I provided a handout for backup information (Exhibit J). This bill takes the double penalty law that we have right now that helps protect workers and work zones and enhances that component of the law, so that you can get the double penalty if you not only violate the speeding laws but several other traffic violations. These violations are the serious ones that tend to cause accidents more than traffic lights or seat belts. The second half of the law is to protect motorists. There is an enhancement for the workers. You can also get the double penalty when workers are not in the work zone if aggravating conditions exist that make the work zone a dangerous place for the traveling public.
The third part of the legislation covers flagmen, disobeying flagmen, and the consequences of that. Since the last session, we have had two incidents in northern Nevada where our members were hit by motorists. Fortunately, none of those people were injured severely. Law enforcement had a severe reluctance to prosecute the drivers who had ignored the flagmen. When they got to court the drivers got a mere hand-slap penalty. I think that is inherently unfair. If the same situation were to happen to a law enforcement officer, they would have charged the driver with attempted murder. If it is just a road construction worker, it is only a $150 fine.
The main changes are on page 7, Section 17. This is where you read that you can get the double penalties for speed limits or violations of NRS. They list them. In subsection b, it said to add the time when construction workers who are performing the construction maintenance to repair the highway or when aggravating circumstances exist. The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) has provided the aggravating circumstances that are listed here. There are situations when the traffic control zones are left up for extended periods of time that cause aggravating situations that put the traveling public at the highest risk in work zones.
Eighty percent of the people who are killed in a work zone are not the workers; they are the motoring public. We need to get people to see that, when they are approaching a work zone, they need to slow down whether people are working in it or not. This is for their own safety. The aggravation circumstances are narrowed lanes, reduction in lanes, the road diverting from its natural alignment, uneven lanes, or surfaces that are not the finished product, concrete treated base, et cetera. We would like to spell out in the statute how we want this to read. Right after the semi-colon we would put, “that states,” and in quotation marks we put “double penalties” and “work zones.”
I know some of the circumstances have changed since this law was enacted two sessions ago. Some of the things done are:
· They have limited the number of miles of lane closure that would be allowed in the work zone.
· They have used more of the concrete barriers to delineate the work zones.
· There is a lot more construction done at night during lower traffic hours.
Thirty percent of fatalities are from motorists in the work zones. In 1983, in a work zone, one of our flaggers, who worked for Union 169, was killed on the highway. She was a single mom of three. The driver of the car that hit her fell asleep. Ever since that time, our local union has spent a considerable amount of money, about $30,000 per year, on television ads. We have a budget of $20,000 to make this change in the law and get the message out to the public. We believe this is a good measure, and we urge you to pass it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The first part of the bill is a workers’ safety measure section. The second part of the bill is about drivers’ safety.
Richard Daly:
It enhances the workers’ safety by creating the double penalty for more than just speeding. At the same time, you can also get the double penalty when workers are not present if the aggravated circumstances exist. It is more geared towards preventing the fatalities that happen to the motoring public. We want them to get conditioned and understand that when you see the orange cones, you need to slow down. If we get this passed, our commercials would be geared towards that.
People who are getting killed are not always the workers; more often it is the motoring public. Recently, at an NDOT work zone in Elko, there were several serious injuries and one fatality. The fatality was not one of the workers; it was the driver.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It is tragic to have a fatality, whether it is a worker or a driver. When a worker is not present, is it not the goal of that portion of the bill to protect drivers because the conditions are unsafe?
Richard Daly:
Yes, you would get a ticket and the double penalty even when workers are not present. That is meant to be an incentive for the motoring public to slow down in a dangerous work zone, regardless of whether the workers are there or not.
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director of Operations, Nevada Department of Transportation:
[Introduces himself.] I oversee maintenance and construction work, and we wholeheartedly support this bill. I see it as a safety measure for our workers, especially in light of that last accident Mr. Daly mentioned. It happened the day before Thanksgiving, and it was tragic. Their traffic control was set up exactly correctly; they had all the signs out, and everything was as it should have been. The proposed legislation is a way we can help protect the workers, as well as the drivers, coming through the work zones. I have our Chief Safety Engineer to help me answer any questions.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I will allow Mr. Musgrove to propose his amendment. I want you to note there is another amendment being proposed by Assemblyman Carpenter (Exhibit K).
Dan Musgrove, Director, Director, Clark County Office of The County Manager:
[Introduces himself.] We appreciate the effort in regard to this bill. We thought it might be important to take it a step further in that this bill only addresses the people working for the Transportation Department. The amendment proposed (Exhibit L) asks that it cover those employees of a governmental entity or of a contractor performing highway construction or maintenance. We believe this would allow those people working in dangerous situations on highways to be safer. We applaud the efforts of this bill, and we hope this makes it better.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Would this cover the tragedy that happened in Clark County a few years ago, where young people were working on the highway, and many of them were killed? It was not a work zone, but the cones were out, were they not?
Reudy Edgington:
I don’t believe it would cover that incident, because those workers were not on the roadway or in an actual work zone. They were off on the shoulders and in the median, so I don’t believe this particular law would apply to that.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I am under the impression that this bill would provide safety for all road and safety construction. The water authority has projects; regular private construction has projects. Is this only for NDOT?
Dan Musgrove:
The way the bill is currently written, as seen on page 2, line 6, it specifically states “for the Department of Transportation.” We thought my amendment was necessary to broaden the scope for those workers who would be performing highway construction duties.
Richard Daly:
The amendment is for disobeying a flagger. When he brought the language to our attention, which states it is for working in a NDOT work zone, or you’re a contractor for NDOT. His amendment would make it so you cannot disobey a flagger on any road project. I think it is a good amendment, and it is not written to exclude flaggers on other projects like RTC projects or surface streets. The other portion on the double penalties would cover highways, and the definition of a highway covers all roadways, as far as I know.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Mr. Daly, if we are going to do this, I would like to see this for all construction. I don’t see why we just want to save the people on the highway jobs. What about all the other projects?
Richard Daly:
I believe it would cover all of them. I believe the amendment on the flagging portion would make it very clear that it covers all flaggers working on construction projects.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will verify that before we vote on the bill because that is the intention. Mr. Carpenter, please present your proposed amendment, and we would like Mr. Edgington to respond.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I was asked by the workers of NDOT, in the Elko District, to introduce this bill to allow the Department to use blue lights on their snow removal vehicle, vehicle equipment, or when they are actually working in a construction or a maintenance zone. There are a number of states that allow this right now. In Nevada, blue lights are only allowed on emergency vehicles and police vehicles.
This amendment would allow NDOT to use blue lights in certain situations, such as when they are actually out on construction maintenance or snow removal projects. There is no question that the blue lights stand out much better. I did talk to the Highway Patrol, and they are probably against this, but on the other hand, I think it is strictly a safety issue.
Every few years, up on Interstate 80, we get bad accidents, and I think we need to do anything we can to prevent them. It was only four or five years ago up on what we call the “Silver Zone,” a female construction worker was killed. Last fall we had another accident by Dunphy, Nevada. When I went to the meeting where the workers asked me to introduce this, two construction workers were there who had lost their legs. It’s not mandatory. When the Department gets new vehicles, they could specify that they want the blue lights on them.
Ruedy Edgington:
I am familiar with the blue light issue. I have not seen any indication that the blue lights are any safer than our current yellow lights. It would be a big expense to start replacing yellow lights with blue lights. I was opposed to the red lights, as I did not want any confusion between our maintenance vehicles being distinguished as an emergency vehicle. We do have some vehicles that have blue lights, if they have not taken them off. Since they were not authorized, I asked them to take them off. I know that my maintenance people are in support of blue lights, and they are the ones who are out there risking their lives. If they want blue lights, I would support it for their sakes without any question. Right now, the law says that blue and red lights are reserved for emergency vehicles only. I would also like to request that they not be mandatory, because that would be a huge expense for us to come up with all the blue lights right away. We would start installing blue lights along with our yellow lights as new vehicles come in.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It very specifically says “may,” so it is not mandatory. Would you please supply a written statement from your maintenance workers? We had some testimony earlier in reference to another bill that stated the blue lights could be seen for 1,000 feet, versus the other lights that can only be seen for a few hundred feet. Perhaps you could research that with NDOT and report that information back to us.
Ruedy Edgington:
Yes, I will do that.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Marji Paslov Thomas, our researcher, has done some research on this, and there are a number of states that allow blue lights, especially on snow removal equipment. When I talked to the Highway Patrol, the Colonel said he was going to get some information that showed what Oregon does, but I never received that information. I know that blue lights stand out even more than red lights do.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Colorado, Minnesota, and Nebraska allow the blue lights on snow removal equipment.
Richard Daly:
I spoke to Mr. Carpenter about this amendment, and we are in support of an issue that would make the highways safer. Being a person who travels the highways and roads in this state, if I see a blue light, it is going to cause me to slow down.
Reudy Edgington:
I have one more concern with the amendment. It specifically states that NDOT vehicles would be allowed the blue light. There are an abundance of construction vehicles owned by contractors that are only allowed yellow lights at this time. Wouldn’t we want to include the blue lights for the other construction and maintenance vehicles, or would we just want to limit it to NDOT?
Chairwoman Chowning:
The amendment just applies to NDOT.
Jeanette Belz, Legislative Advocate, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter:
[Introduces herself.] I just want to let you know that we are in favor of this bill. We are very concerned about workers’ safety and work zones, and, if this helps to improve that, we would support it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Do you also support the amendment?
Jeanette Belz:
I don’t know. I do not think we would have a problem with it if it is only limited to NDOT. If it had to go back to all construction vehicles, I would have to go back and talk to my associates about that.
Debbie Smith, Fringe Benefits Representative, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3:
[Introduces herself.] We are absolutely in support of this legislation. This is very serious business, as we have had so many tragic accidents within our ranks. We need all drivers to understand the seriousness of the construction zones. I would have the same comment as Ms. Belz about the amendment on the blue lights.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Mr. Daly, I wanted to thank you for bringing this bill up to us today. You and I talked about this quite a bit. In fact, this has been my line of business for almost 45 years, and I want to go on the record as supporting this bill wholeheartedly.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 444, and we will ask everyone to work together on it. We will open the hearing on our last bill today, which is A.B. 520, and then we will have some follow up on A.B. 197.
Assembly Bill 520: Transfers Program for Education of Motorcycle Riders from Department of Motor Vehicles to Department of Public Safety. (BDR 43-1317)
Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles:
A.B. 520 is a technical adjustment that transfers the responsibility for the motorcycle education program from DMV to Public Safety. This change was overlooked last session when DMV split from the Department of Public Safety. The Motorcycle Education Program is administered by the Office of Traffic Safety, which is located in the Department Of Public Safety.
Chuck Abbott, Highway Safety Coordinator, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety:
[Introduces himself.] We concur with this proposal 100 percent.
Assemblyman Sherer:
When someone takes his driver’s test, are you, in the Safety Division, going to be the ones administering that, or will it be the DMV?
Chuck Abbott:
No, the motorcycle-riding program is limited just to a training program. The actual certification, driver’s licensing, and registration would remain with the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Chairwoman Chowning:
What is the necessary reason to transfer the program for the education of motorcycle riders into the Department of Public Safety?
Chuck Abbott:
The motorcycle-training program originated about ten years ago, and it has always operated under the Department of Public Safety. The two departments have split, but in NRS, it still provides that it should be in the Department of Motor Vehicles when, in fact, it should be in the Department of Traffic Safety.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Does anyone else wish to speak for or against A.B. 520? [Nobody did.] The chair will accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 520.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Will the representatives from NDOT please come forward and let us know our progress on A.B. 197.
Dennis Baughman, Representative, Nevada Department of Transportation:
May we please do this on Thursday?
Chairwoman Chowning:
Yes, Thursday will be fine. Meeting is adjourned [at 3:56 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Nancy Elder
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman
DATE: