MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
April 24, 2003
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:31 p.m., on Thursday, April 24, 2003. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and 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:
Senator Mike McGinnis, Central Nevada Senatorial District
Senator Dennis Nolan, Clark County Senatorial District No. 9
Senator Michael A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 11
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
Nancy Elder, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Sande III, Attorney at Law, Jones and Vargas, Representing the Nevada Franchise Auto Dealers Association
Tom Bordigioni, Owner, Mountain Family RV; RV Dealers Association
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
Marlene Wheeler, President and Chief Operating Officer, Wheeler’s Las Vegas RV; Recreational Vehicle Dealers Association of Southern Nevada
Andy Wheeler, Co-owner of Wheeler’s Las Vegas RV
Tom Lammel, Nevada Wildlife Record Book Committee
Tom Cavin, Member, Nevada Wildlife Committee
John Capurro, Member, Nevada Wildlife Committee
Martha Barnes, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
Nancy A. Becker, Associate Justice, Nevada Supreme Court
Eric Guevin, Director of Education, Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority; Washoe County SAFE KIDS Coalition
John Johansen, Representative, Office of Traffic Safety, Nevada Department of Public Safety
Jeanne Cosgrove, R.N., Executive Director, Clark County SAFE KIDS Coalition; Injury Prevention Coordinator, Sunrise Children’s Hospital; Child/Passenger Safety Instructor, Las Vegas
Erin Breen, Director, Safe Community Partnership, Transportation Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Lisa Foster, Representative, American Automobile Association, Nevada
Melanie Gilmour, Child Passenger Specialist, American Automobile Association, Nevada
Bob Roshak, Sergeant, Las Vegas Metro Police; Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Shannon Greguras, Las Vegas Police Protection Association of Civilian Employees
Christine Kuhl, Administrative Office of the Courts
Dennis Colling, Chief Administrator, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
Chairwoman Chowning:
The Assembly Committee on Transportation will come to order. [Roll was called.] Senator McGinnis is here and serves as the Chair of the Senate Taxation Committee. We are going to open the hearing on S.B. 15 and then we will take S.B. 355, but we want the Senator to be able to get back to his taxing job.
Senate Bill 15 (1st Reprint): Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of wildlife in Nevada. (BDR 43-332)
Senator Mike McGinnis, Central Nevada Senatorial District (Churchill, Esmeralda, and Mineral Counties, and portions of Clark, Douglas, Lyon, and Nye Counties):
[Introduced himself] This is the first time I have ever introduced a license plate bill, and it may be the last, but they convinced me that they had a good project. The most meaningful part of my testimony might be that the Senate passed your license plate bill within the past 90 minutes, Chairwoman Chowning; not that I am asking for any favors or anything, since we were freshmen together back in 1989.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It is getting to be so thick in here. Thank you, Senator McGinnis. It was nice being freshmen together. Because of the people in Las Vegas, we have to take the bills out of order, so I hope people understand. Now we will go to S.B. 355. Will the people for this bill please come forward? Mr. Sande, begin your testimony on S.B. 355.
Senate Bill 355 (1st Reprint): Extends coverage of provisions relating to franchises for motor vehicles to include certain recreation vehicles. (BDR 43-1238)
John Sande III, Attorney at Law, Jones and Vargas, Representing the Nevada Franchise Auto Dealers Association:
[Introduced himself] I am here today on behalf of the Nevada Franchise Auto Dealers Association, in support of S.B. 355. This bill was not a bill that was requested by the Nevada Franchise Auto Dealers Association, but we think it makes good sense to extend the protection of the franchise laws in Nevada that apply to motor vehicle dealers, to recreational vehicle dealers. If you look at the bill, you have some changes that basically expand it to include recreational vehicles. There is some concern about Section 11 of the bill, which we requested to be amended in the Senate; let me explain.
[John Sande] This amendment deals with the termination of a dealer. In the existing law, if a dealer is terminated, the manufacturer or the distributor has an obligation to purchase back the new vehicles, even if they’re not in the current model year. The existing law on the books right now, as used in this paragraph, starting on line 10 of page 3 of the bill, “A new vehicle is one that has not been damaged or materially altered, and if it is equipped with an odometer that registers 50 miles or less.“ If you look at the first reprint, we deleted that language, trying to be consistent with the definition of a new vehicle that is set forth in another section of our statute. If you look at that, you will see that in Section 6 of the bill, where you will see that the definition of the vehicle is —
Chairwoman Chowning:
The definition is on page 2, lines 20 through 25.
John Sande:
The definition of a new vehicle on the first reprint is in Section 5.5. In any event, the law for every place in the statute except for “on termination” has a definition of “new vehicle.” It means a vehicle that has never been registered with the department, and has never been registered with the appropriate agency or authority of any other state, the District of Columbia, any territorial possession of the United States, or foreign state province or country; or if it has been so registered and is equipped with an odometer that registers 2,500 miles or less on the odometer. That is the definition. The 2,500 miles or less that applies is to all issues about new vehicles, except in the termination provisions of Section 11 of the bill.
The manufacturers say that 2,500 miles is too much; somebody could register a vehicle that has 2,000 miles on it and has been registered and we would be responsible for buying it back. We have consulted with some of them, and we have looked at their concerns. I will tell you what we have agreed to propose, and I can provide language afterwards, but it is fairly simple. If you take the existing law, lines 19 through 22, the dealers’ inventory of new vehicles including new vehicles not of the current model year, and then on the other side, we struck the language as used in this paragraph, a new vehicle is one that has not been damaged or materially altered and registered 50 miles or less on its odometer.
The 50 miles or less is a problem if you are an RV dealer. A lot of times the RVs are transported by road, and you may have 2,000 miles on them by the time the new vehicle has been delivered. We understand there is a concern about having a flat 2,500 miles, because for a new motor vehicle that has been registered, it may not be fair to a dealer who buys the vehicle back. The manufacturer would be responsible for buying the vehicle back if the dealer was terminated. What we are proposing is that we go back and amend Section 11 here in the Assembly. It would say if there is a termination, the manufacturer or distributor would be responsible for purchasing the dealer’s inventory of new vehicles including new vehicles not of the current model year. We would then use most of the existing language saying, as used in this paragraph, a new vehicle is one that has not been damaged or materially altered, and add “or registered with the DMV or any other agency out of this state.”
[John Sande] This would mean if you registered a vehicle it would no longer be a new vehicle, and we could remove the language regarding the 2,500 miles or 50 miles. I think the intent would be very clear. If you had a vehicle that you bought from a manufacturer, even though it wasn’t a current model year, if you had not registered it and if you had not damaged it or materially altered it, that it would be paid for in the event that you terminated the dealership.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Does everybody have the language that was on page 3, where Mr. Sande was proposing the amendment to the bill? [They replied affirmatively.]
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
How would you define material alteration?
John Sande:
I think it would be a fact if there was a dispute, but I would think any car that is not what we would deem to be new. In the past, I have bought a car, and it always has some mileage on it, even if it’s brand new, because they have to drive it across town or drive from California or something like that. If you used it, and it wasn’t for display and ultimate sale as a new vehicle, it would not be deemed to be a new vehicle. If you had a dispute, you could go to the DMV Department of Motor Vehicles, and the manufacturer or the dealer could file a complaint with the DMV. They would not go that far for one car. But if there was a major dispute over other vehicles, they could have a hearing officer determine whether or not the terms were appropriate. You already have that, because in existing law, you already have “materially damaged,” and to my knowledge that has never been a dispute.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
Putting gasoline into a motor vehicle would not be a material alteration?
John Sande:
No, it would not. Existing law already states “materially altered or damaged.” All we would be saying is that if you register the vehicle, it is no longer a new vehicle.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
When a new vehicle is sold, motor home or otherwise, you are issued a DRS Dealer Report of Sale, which you can drive with until you register that vehicle. What would you do in the event that somebody purchased a motor vehicle, and the DRS went over 2,500 miles, but the vehicle was never registered. How would that apply here?
John Sande:
I think in that circumstance, you would have a question of fact, because of driving it for 2,500 miles raises the question of whether that materially altered or damaged the vehicle. It might be better if Tom Bordigioni addressed that question.
Tom Bordigioni, Owner, Mountain Family RV of Reno; RV Dealers Association:
[Introduced himself] I think this applies mainly to dealers. If a dealer had sold this vehicle to a customer, it would not be eligible for repurchase because it would not belong to us any longer.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Let me restate my question. If the vehicle was purchased and they drove it for 2,500 miles, then they brought it back or it was repossessed or the purchaser had terrible credit – yet they drove it – only to come back to find out that they needed to give it back to the dealer, would it still be considered a new vehicle?
Tom Bordigioni:
It would be sold as new, but it would be disclosed that it had been driven and the price would be severely reduced.
Assemblyman Collins:
I am curious. How this would affect a situation like the one we had where the guy was selling used cars out of the office, and the maintenance was going to the shop?
Tom Bordigioni:
The legislation we did with auto brokers was cleared up.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is a good question, Assemblyman Collins. Mr. Sande will remember this, and he will testify. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall was the Chair of the Subcommittee that came up with the solution for the auto broker/auto dealer problem.
John Sande:
That is an issue we want to make crystal clear. This has no affect. Look at page 2, Section 5.5. In the Senate, we tried to make the 2,500 miles apply in every circumstance. That is why we struck the language on lines 18 and 19 that says, “Except as provided in NRS 482.363521, a new vehicle means. . .” We took out that “except” language. The “except“ language applies to Section 11, where we are talking about termination. If you process this bill as we are proposing to amend it, you would leave that language in. A new vehicle means a vehicle that has never been registered or has 2,500 miles or less. We do not want to touch anything dealing with other types of sales or other transactions under Chapter 482. That is very important to get on the record.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That really is, because that is how this language was developed in the first place, as Assemblyman Collins will remember. We do have a letter from someone that they want to be put on the record, and after the testimony we will state that.
This was a Nevada problem. This definition was put into statute in the first place to address the auto broker/auto dealer situation in 1995. Here we are 8 years later, and that has been working very well. In Section 11, because of other testimony, now you’re suggesting to change that. This is only if a manufacturer has to provide compensation or a dealer has to take inventory back. You are suggesting that if the car were registered, then it would no longer qualify as part of the inventory that the manufacturer would take back.
John Sande:
That is correct.
Tom Bordigioni:
We are in complete support of S.B. 355.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I am sorry I missed a little of the testimony; I had to get my earpiece so I could hear all this good stuff. My question would be, why are you doing this? Is this in regards to when automobiles are manufactured in Michigan or wherever? Instead of trucking them out here, you want to caravan them out here, is that why you want the extra mileage? I would like to know what the object is and why you want to do this.
John Sande:
The reason for the bill was to expand the protections of our Franchise Act to recreational vehicles. Now we have two issues out there: we have motor vehicles in the event of the termination of a franchise or a dealership, and then under this act we have the issues of a recreational vehicle dealer. In the Senate, we tried to make everything consistent and put in the definition of “new vehicle” that applies to brokers and every place in the statute to termination. We had some objection to that from certain manufactures who said if you can go and not register a vehicle and put this mileage on, maybe that is not fair. We have tried to come up with a compromise.
[John Sande] The reason for the 50 miles, if you look on page 22, line 3, the existing law says that if a dealer is terminated, whether a recreational vehicle dealer or a motor vehicle dealer, and there is a car or a recreational vehicle that has more than 50 miles, that is no longer deemed to be new. I think the testimony already given would tell you that, especially in the recreational vehicle area, a lot of times they transport these vehicles by road. By the time they come to a dealership they may have a couple thousand miles on them. So under this section, if there was a termination of the dealership, and you had brand new vehicles you had just received from the manufacturer, and the recreational vehicle arena, they would not fall within the definition.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Mr. Sande, when you stated the line and page number, it should have been page 3, line 22.
John Sande:
You are right; according to my glasses it is page 3.
Tom Bordigioni:
All of our motor homes are shipped by road. They are not transported on flatbeds because it would just be too expensive. You could only do one at a time. We carry the Allegro brand, and every one I get in has 2,200 miles or more, depending on the route they have to take and on the time of year. Every manufacturer and dealer in Nevada would already be excluded from the present law because of the 50 miles. I think the main point of this bill is to add towable RV’s to the existing law.
Assemblyman Claborn:
We are talking about motor homes; we are not talking about automobiles or pickup trucks or whatever? You could classify an SUV or whatever, and I don’t want this to apply to an automobile situation. I can understand these big 40‑foot or 50-foot long motor homes being too expensive to truck, but I can’t see an automobile with 2,500 miles on it being considered new. Somebody could have taken it up into the hills for three weeks to tear the thing up. I think that is wrong unless you are just talking about motor homes.
John Sande:
I know you weren’t here, Assemblyman Claborn, but that is why we proposed to delete the 2,500 miles, and put in the following amendment. If you will look on page 3, lines 19 through 22, you can see where we would be striking the second sentence of Section 11, subsection 1(a). The existing law says they have to buy the dealer’s inventory of new vehicles including new vehicles not of the current model year. It goes on to say “. . . a new vehicle is one which has not been damaged or materially altered and registers 50 miles or less on its odometer.” This is existing law, and it only applies right now to motor vehicle franchises.
What the recreational vehicle people wanted to do was to seek the protection of the Act of Franchised Auto Dealers. The question is how do you protect both of them in the event of termination of the dealership? What we have proposed is taking out the 50 miles. Don’t put in 25 miles, but say that a new vehicle is one which has been not damaged or materially altered or has never been registered. I think your example of someone taking a vehicle up to the hills and beating it up would obviously mean it had been materially altered. To my knowledge, that has never been an issue in Nevada, and I think it is a good law as it stands. We are trying to address the concerns that have been raised by the 2,500 miles.
Assemblyman Claborn:
We are only talking about RVs, and not automobiles, right?
John Sande:
The existing law includes automobiles.
Assemblyman Claborn:
That is what I was talking about. Does it include a Chevrolet, like a two-passenger car, or a one-passenger car, or whatever? That is way too many miles for me.
John Sande:
We are proposing putting in language that would say if the vehicle is registered, then it automatically becomes a used vehicle for the purposes of buying it back from the dealer.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I understand, thank you.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The existing law, the Franchise Law has been in place since 1999?
John Sande:
It has been in existence for much longer than that, but we did go through and update it in 1999. It passed unanimously out of both houses.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The purpose of this bill is to include recreational vehicles under the franchiseprotection statute.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
As I understand the bill as amended, there would be no mileage in it at all.
John Sande:
We are proposing to take out the mileage. In the Senate, we tried to get one definition of new vehicle, which included the 2,500 mileage. We recognized, as Assemblyman Claborn pointed out, that putting in a mileage may not make sense. On the other hand, you might have a car with more than 2,500 that you could still determine to be a new car. If it was materially altered or damaged, or if you register it, it is no longer a new car for the purposes of the franchise.
Assemblyman Collins:
As there is a representative from the RV industry – we have received a lot of e‑mails regarding the proposals, and with this opportunity, that opposition should go away. Is there a possibility that we will get new e-mails, to the legislators, saying they no longer oppose some of those proposals?
Tom Bordigioni:
I am sorry, but I don’t understand your question.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Assemblyman Collins is not talking about this bill. Assemblyman Collins wants the people who are listening out there, who sent the first batch of e-mails to now send another set of e-mails. It has nothing to do with this bill.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I see there is a fiscal note. How much is it?
Chairwoman Chowning:
It says, “Effect on local government.” [Someone from the Committee added, “and the state.”]
John Sande:
I have no idea why that is there.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The DMV Department of Motor Vehicles could let us know about that.
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:
[Introduced himself] The department has not submitted a fiscal note that I am aware of, so there is no effect on the Department. I have no idea why local government would be affected.
Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:
[Introduced himself]If the fiscal note states that there is no fiscal impact, then there is no fiscal impact.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is usually what that means. That was a front row, freshman question and a very good question. Now we will go to Las Vegas. Please state your name for the record and I think we all know your jingle, but we won’t sing it, but if you want to, go right ahead.
Marlene Wheeler, President and Chief Operating Officer, Wheeler’s Las Vegas RV; Recreational Vehicle Dealers Association of Southern Nevada:
[Introduces herself] With me is my husband, Andy Wheeler. I am also representing the Recreational Vehicle Dealers Association of Southern Nevada and speaking for the dealers of southern Nevada. We are here in support of Senate Bill 355.
Assemblyman Claborn, I would like to address your concern about mileage, even though we have taken the mileage out. From the consumers’ side, even though this bill has nothing to do with the consumer, but as a consumer, we want to be clear that the consumers’ warranty on a recreational vehicle, even though it might have been driven 2,200 miles, or more or less, from the manufacturer, their warranty does not start until they actually take delivery of that vehicle.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Thank you very much. All of my concerns have been met.
Andy Wheeler, Co-owner of Wheeler’s Las Vegas RV:
I am in favor of what Mr. Sande has read here today, including all of the amendments.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Because there is an amendment, we won’t be voting on the bill today; we will do that another day in work session. Just stay tuned to see what happens with the bill. [Two letters of opposition to the bill were provided to the Committee members, Exhibit C and Exhibit D.] We will close the hearing on S.B. 355 and reopen the hearing on S.B. 15. We had to open that while Senator McGinnis was able to be here and be on the record; then we will take Senator Nolan’s bill.
Senate Bill 15 (1st Reprint): Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of wildlife in Nevada. (BDR 43-332)
Tom Lammel, Nevada Wildlife Record Book Committee:
[Introduced himself, and provided a handout, Exhibit E.] Thank you for letting us come before you today. In the 1980s, the Nevada Wildlife Record Book Committee was formed for the purpose of publishing a quality publication depicting wildlife in Nevada. Our book was very successful. The first edition, done in 1985, is now selling in excess of $200 to collectors. That book originally cost $20. Our fourth edition, done in 2000, has nearly sold out. We are working on the fifth edition.
We have decided it is time to start a new project, a wildlife-interpreting center. It is the Interactive Interpretive Center for Wildlife; it is something to allow children, adults, and travelers in Nevada the opportunity to explore wildlife. We intend to construct the facility so it will not only attract local residents, but tourists as well. It may not be a destination for travelers, but I know that if I am traveling through another state and there is such an attraction, I will personally go a couple hundred miles out of my way to visit it. It will showcase Nevada’s wildlife in their natural environment and launch educational opportunities for those who visit.
We currently have some funds available from the profits of our book, and we have no doubt that we will be able to find other donations, donors, and partners to build this center. The special license plate we have proposed, and I believe that you all have a picture of it, is for the purpose of operation and maintenance of this center for the years down the road. Additionally, we have the ability to fund other items such as scholarships for those who are interested in going forward with their education in wildlife habitat improvement and things like that. We maintain our organization as an Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) nonprofit. We are currently in the five-year cycle for review and we expect to be reinstated/renewed (see pg 14). Those are the basics of our program. My request to you is to please pass S.B. 15 out of this Committee today. I’ll answer any questions that you have, and Mr. Cavin and Mr. Capurro have some other comments.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Have you selected a site for this interpretive center?
Tom Lammel:
We have some idea of a site but we have not pursued it yet. We were looking at doing it with cooperation from Washoe County. We would like to find a site that would have the best exposure and economic situation for the site and for the community. Eventually we would like to have a couple more different locations across the state, possibly in Reno, Las Vegas, and Elko.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Do you have an idea about how much money one of these centers would generate in a two-year period?
Tom Lammel:
There is a minimum of 1,000 license plates necessary to move forward with this. That generates $20,000 per year at a minimum. We hope we can sell 4,000 to 5,000 plates. We hope to generate $60,000, $80,000, or even $100,000 per year for the purpose of operation and maintenance of the Center (Interactive Interpretive Center for Wildlife). That might be a dream, but I believe there were some projections done to support the data. Our plate looks pretty cool and I think there will be a demand for it. I think 4,000 to 5,000 plates are not out of line.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I like it too; I would like to go on record in supporting this 100 percent. It is a good cause, I really like it, and it would be good for all the hunters and fishermen of the state of Nevada, and I am for it.
Tom Lammel:
This is not just going to be a hunter and fisherman plate. It depicts the Nevada desert Bighorn Sheep. We hope we get a lot of people at our interpretive center. It will not just focus on hunting and fishing, but it will focus on wildlife period; it includes songbirds and whatever else. It’s all part of the wildlife, and of course people who are hunters and fishermen are at times the custodians of those. Maybe we will include the sage grouse, because our sage grouse in Nevada is definitely something to stress. Our interpretive center could rotate through certain different things in wildlife that need special attention.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
You mentioned you are a 501(c)(3) organization. How long has this organization been in existence?
Tom Lammel:
I believe that Tom Cavin, Ted Wakey, and myself originally met in 1980 and started the first record book that was published in 1985. We originally were under the Nevada Wildlife Federation as a committee, and five years ago we branched out on our own and got our own 501(c)(3) certification. Now, after five years, it has to be reviewed as part of normal procedure.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I do like the plate and would like to lend support to it, but my concern is that there are so many different plates and organizations out there. We would not want to see a license plate issued to a recently formed organization that has not had a history or a background to show it will go anywhere. I would like to give my support to this anyway.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. That was a very good question, because usually proceeds go to a state agency, and then the agency gives grants to an organization. When proceeds go directly to an organization, it makes people wonder where the accountability is.
Tom Cavin, Member, Nevada Wildlife Committee:
[Introduced himself] I don’t think the director of the Division of Wildlife is here today. He testified very favorably about this organization and the working relationship with the Division of Wildlife when we had this same scenario on the Senate side. We always have a staff member from the Division of Wildlife on our committee, and that person is a volunteer, not in a paid position. All of the people who have worked on this project over the years are volunteers. No one has ever been paid to work on this project, and as a nonprofit organization, our records are always open to be viewed by the public at any time.
I do think it is important that you realize the Division of Wildlife is supportive of this project. As for the scholarship program, the Division of Wildlife administers the scholarship and we provide the money. They provide us some summer workers out of the deal so we can get some necessary fieldwork accomplished. We provide all of the resources for the fieldwork. We have been doing that for about five years.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
This bill does not have a provision for sample plates with the red letters on them. Other organizations use those to raise additional funding for their cause. People generally only have 2, 3, or 4 vehicles. There are many different plates out there, but they cannot buy a particular plate just to support an organization unless they get the one with the red letters. Would there be a possibility that they could amend this into that?
Tom Lammel:
I did not know about the red sample plates when we put this together. I think our preference would be to come back in two years if necessary to add that in.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you, but you would not have to.
John Capurro, Member, Nevada Wildlife Committee:
[Introduced himself] Nevada’s wildlife is an important part of the heritage of the state of Nevada. There are a lot of people in Nevada who do not know what wildlife we have in the state. They do not know the difference between a pronghorn antelope and a mountain goat. They don’t know the difference between a bull elk and a mule deer buck. They don’t know that there are three species of bighorn sheep in the state of Nevada: the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, the Californian bighorn sheep, and the desert bighorn sheep.
This is to provide education to the citizens of Nevada, not just the youth, but all citizens. This way, they know whenever they have a chance to make a decision on how wildlife is handled and they will know what species they are talking about, so they know what is here and what the value is. One day, they may be sitting in the very chairs you are now and you want them to be able to do the job correctly.
Most of you know my brother Daryl Capurro, and he wants to go on record saying he is in support of S.B.15.
Assemblyman Sherer:
Do you have a Web site?
Tom Lammel:
Yes, we have a Web site under “Hunt Nevada,” www.huntnevada.com; we are one of the links on it, www.huntnevada.com/recordbook/. There is also a link on the Nevada Department of Wildlife site.
Assemblyman Sherer:
What other groups are you working with?
Tom Lammel:
We have been kind of a partnership with the Nevada Department of Wildlife over the last 23 years. Basically, we are a group of our own. We do not have other groups that contribute to us. We do contribute a number of prints and books to other organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited, Bighorns Unlimited, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. We contribute to them for their auctions and for things they use to raise money. One of these books with all of our signatures on it brings in pretty good money.
Assemblyman Sherer:
I am also in support of this.
Martha Barnes, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:
[Introduced herself] The Department has been presented with a fiscal note for S.B. 15, in the amount of $15,707. An appropriation has not been requested due to the revolving account previously established to cover expenses for these specialty plates.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you for that information. There are two other plates, for the Committee’s knowledge, that will be coming before this Committee. There will be no vote today. We will close S.B. 15 and open the hearing on S.B 116.
Senate Bill 116 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to use of equipment to secure children traveling in certain motor vehicles. (BDR 43-87)
Chairwoman Chowning:
Welcome back, Senator Nolan.
Senator Dennis Nolan, Clark County Senatorial District No. 9:
[Introduced himself] I brought your license plate to return to you, and I wanted you to know this did pass off the Floor today with only one no vote. [Commented that the one “no” vote was from a Legislator who votes against all license plates.] I am honored to have with me today one of our Justices, Justice Nancy A. Becker, who has taken an interest in the bill before us. Unfortunately, the Justices are in conference right now, and since she has brought a proposed amendment, I think we should move ahead with respect to her time and allow her to explain her amendment so she can be on her way.
Nancy A. Becker, Associate Justice, Nevada Supreme Court:
[Introduced herself] Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate your being kind enough to let me go first. Normally I would not mind waiting, but I do have six other Justices in conference.
[Justice Becker] This is not a bill that the Supreme Court would originally follow, because there is not anything in it that would affect the court system. When the first reprint came out, we noticed that, in addition to the procedures for an individual who has violated the child restraint law, they needed to go to a training program. If they went to a training program, it could reduce their fine, and their community service. The bill provided that the training program would be conducted by a person or an agency approved by the court for which the ticket was located. The courts don’t have any expertise in child restraint systems.
I came and spoke to Senator Nolan and to the Department of Motor Vehicles, who then directed me to the Department of Public Safety. The state agency responsible for keeping track of who is trained in the federal child restraint standards, and who would be able to conduct this kind of training is the Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety. The gentleman at the head status is Chuck Abbott. He would be more than delighted to do this; he thinks this is exactly what his office is for. We simply proposed an amendment (Exhibit F) that substitutes “the Department of Public Safety” for “the Court.” They will keep the lists of who is approved to conduct the training. They will provide that list and work with the courts.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Where would that be found?
Justice Becker:
It would be on page 2, lines 13 and 14, and line 22.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you, and you can return to your conference. Please tell the other Justices we said hello.
Justice Becker:
They also wanted to extend their hellos to you and thank you for all the hard work you are doing here. One of our representatives from the Administrative Office of Courts, Christine Kuhl, will remain to answer any questions.
Senator Nolan:
S.B. 116 was a bill brought to me by the SAFE KIDS Coalition. It is a statewide organization consisting of all the emergency providers, such as fire departments, police, ambulance providers, helicopter rescue organizations, hospitals, and other organizations. Their purpose is to promote the safety and well-being of our state’s children. This was an issue that came to our attention in the end of last session, but we did not have the opportunity to address it.
[Senator Nolan] On a national level, over the last 3 years it has been recognized that there has been a substantial number of children who are over the age and weight limit requiring them to sit in a child seat, and who are still too small to be accommodated by an adult lap belt. They have suffered severe and even fatal injuries, sometimes in relatively low impact accidents, as a result of either not being restrained or from being restrained in an adult lap belt. What you have in front of you is some information that came from a national study, referred to as the CIREN Report (Exhibit G, provided by John Johansen). It is a research and engineering network report, commissioned through the U.S. Department of Transportation. I don’t expect you to read this whole thing, so we will highlight some important parts and other speakers will explain other components of this bill as well.
I think the most significant part of the CIREN Report is on page 2, where there are some graphic photos of what happens to children who are wearing adult‑size seat belts that ride up too high over the child’s pelvis. Seat belts are normally designed to take the force of a forward impact and slow the body’s momentum, but since the seat belts ride so high on children, they cause severe intestinal and spinal-type injuries, which are often fatal. Because of the results of this report, which was completed in 2001, a number of states have been hurrying to implement some type of legislation. I understand there is federal legislation in the works to try to modify automobiles and manufactured seats, so they have the flip down seats that you see. Unfortunately, that legislation probably won’t be enacted for some time, as it works its way through Congress. Even when it is, there will have to be a certain amount of time to allow manufactures to comply with it. In the meantime, children are dying as a result of this very recognizable and preventable issue.
There is a copy of LegisBrief (Exhibit H) that came out in January 2003 that will tell you, under “State Actions,” which states have been moving to pass this type of legislation. Currently, there are 24 states that have implemented or are considering legislation, that we know of. I am sure the other states will follow shortly.
The bill itself will require children who are 8 years of age and under, or who weigh 80 pounds would be required to sit in a booster seat. We are not talking about a full-fledged child seat for an 8-year-old, but a booster seat. They look like this one here [holding up a booster seat] that belongs to my 4-year-old daughter. We will talk about how people who cannot afford these can get one, and what agencies will provide them. They run between $15 and $25, and are not the full, $35 to $100, giant seats. They are very affordable and they place the child in a position where the seat belt can be worn safely. There is a device for the seat belt that acts as the pivoting point in a deceleration-type of accident. This one is a nice sporty model, and the kids like it because they can see out the windows.
[Senator Nolan] People ask what they are supposed to do if they have several children in their car that fit into this category, and they are taking them to the movies or something. I say for approximately $15 apiece, throw a couple extras in your trunk. The alternative is to risk getting in an accident and suffering life threatening injuries. We have other experts who are going to testify about how many fatalities we have had in this state in the last 24 months as a result to these types of accidents. As a part-time coroner investigator, I recently investigated the death of a child in this age group who was restrained improperly and died from multiple injuries. The seat belt did not do anything to protect the child, whereas in this type of safety device, the child probably would have stayed in the seat belt.
There is a fine of $50, but not more than $500, for not being in compliance with this regulation. The minimum fine for parking in a handicapped parking spot is $100, and we thought it should be a little more than that. There have been a number of people who have been repeat offenders who were cited for not having their small children in child seats. For example, one woman was cited three times, and then the fourth time she was involved in an accident. The child who was not restrained, but who was supposed to be, was killed in the accident. The $500 fine would be imposed in the worst-case scenario, and would be at the judge’s discretion. The fine could also be waived for community service. That is in the bill on page 2. The people who are cited through this are also required to complete a program of training required by the court. The training program would be to ensure the individual installs the seats properly. The remainder of the bill is primarily the age and size requirements.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Would you please touch on page 3, Section 2, subsection 2? There are some changes to existing law in other instances as well. It reads that “any person driving, and any passenger who is 9 years old or older, or weighs more than 80 pounds. . .”
Senator Nolan:
I am going to read part of Section 2, subsections 2 and 3, which I believe are current law.
A citation must be issued to any driver or to any adult passenger who fails to wear a safety belt as required by subsection 2. If the passenger is a child who is 9 years of age or older but less than 18 years of age, regardless of the weight. . .
Chairwoman Chowning:
Maybe we will have our Research Analyst explain that part. It seems to me that this strengthens the existing law in some way.
Senator Nolan:
We have now taken a new category of children, up to the age of 9, who formerly fell within the minor category. Now we have to specify between those minors between the ages of 9 and 18. It is currently required that they wear a seat belt.
Eric Guevin, Director of Education, Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority; Washoe County SAFE KIDS Coalition:
[Introduced himself and provided Exhibit I, SAFE KIDS Coalition Folder] It is current law for them to be restrained in a seat belt at this time; however, it does not move it from a secondary offense to a primary offense. A car can be pulled over because an officer believes a child might not be restrained. There can only be one citation issued for that vehicle.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Why did the weight of the vehicle have to change from 6,000 pounds to 10,000 pounds?
Senator Nolan:
That is to accommodate the new SUVs (sport utility vehicles) that weigh over 6,000 pounds.
Chairwoman Chowning:
In the illustration that you have given us in figure 10 of this book (Exhibit I), where it shows what an incorrect belt fit looks like, it appears that the seat raises the height of the seat, so why is it that the shoulder strap still does not fit? What would be the difference in the booster seat from the child seat?
Eric Guevin:
The Traffic Safety Institute, which does the testing, is demonstrating a bucket seat in a vehicle. That is not showing a child safety seat. What it demonstrates is that the seat belt is high on the child’s belly, and the shoulder belt going across the child’s neck. It is a little confusing.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It does illustrate the need for the booster seat, because it raises them higher, which would bring the shoulder belt down across his chest rather than across his neck, correct?
Eric Guevin:
Yes. There is a higher booster seat. There are different types of booster seats; there is a high-back booster [holds up a booster seat]. The low-back booster seats cost about $15 to $20, and the high back-booster seats are a little more expensive. You can get them almost anywhere, and we have distribution programs throughout the state.
Senator Nolan:
If there are no more questions, I am going to leave and return to the Senate Transportation Committee.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you very much. This is an excellent child safety measure.
John Johansen, Representative, Office of Traffic Safety, Nevada Department of Public Safety:
[Introduced himself]I need to say that as a federally funded state employee, we will officially be neutral on any bills on which we provide any information.
We do have the information on all people and programs that can provide the education services and training services for the state. I have given you some information (Exhibit G), which includes the CIREN Report. I will give you a brief overview and then the others can offer their testimonies. Motor vehicle crashes are the most significant cause of unintentional death and injury for children less than 15 years old. Having outgrown child safety seats designed for the younger passengers, children ages 5 to 9 frequently sit unrestrained or inappropriately use the restraint systems designed for adults.
Data from the CIREN Report indicates that it is generally more dangerous to use inappropriate restraints than to use restraints somewhat incorrectly. Additionally, children between 5 years of age and 9 years of age are in one of three groups, the other two being ages 65 to 74, and age 75 and older. These three groups have not had a significant decline in fatalities or injuries in the last 20 years or so, 1978 to the present. For the 5- to 9-year-old age group, we do have an effective method of reducing these fatalities and injuries, and it is the booster seat.
From October 1, 2001 to October 31, 2002, a 13-month period, Nevada experienced eight child deaths, ages 0 to 8, in motor vehicle crashes. Seven of those children used no restraints at all. During the same period of time, 40 children survived accidents where there were fatalities. Of the survivors, 77 percent, or 31 out of 40, used an appropriate restraint. Using the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s projection, there would be a 45 percent reduction in fatalities in comparing restraint use to non-use. Four children would have been saved during this 13-month period. From 1995 to 2001, in Nevada, there were 42 fatalities ages 5 to 9. A 45 percent reduction would have meant 19 lives saved.
[John Johansen] In general, traffic crashes create a tremendous burden on the state. In 2001, the billed amount for motor vehicle crash trauma patients, for the Medicaid and county paid only portion, equaled $7.7 million. The average amount billed for a restrained passenger was $37,900. The average amount billed for an unrestrained passenger was $84,000. The difference alone, in 2001, between an unrestrained and a restrained victim was $2.3 million. If you wish, we can go to $200 million for all insurance payments, but this was just the Medicaid and county costs only. That is a brief overview from the Office of Traffic Safety.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Do you have those statistics in writing?
John Johansen:
Yes, it is part of your package.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We are often asked, “Whom does it hurt?” It not only hurts or tragically kills the children, but it does cost the taxpayers money out of their pockets as well. Are there any questions?
Assemblyman Collins:
Since we started with the infant car seats we have progressively moved up the requirements. I think when we require the infants to sit in the infant seats, we have gotten them in the habit, and then when they outgrow that infant seat, they still have the habit of putting their seat belts on. I know that is the case with my grandkids. They put their seat belts on or they don’t go. My question is about some of the statistics you gave. Are those only accidents where a child was in the seat of a vehicle, or did those statistics include incidents where kids were hanging on in back or on the top or what not?
John Johansen:
Of the 8 fatalities, 7 were unrestrained. One was restrained. Of the 40 survivors, 31 were properly restrained.
Assemblyman Collins:
Inside, outside, on top or where? These were just total accidents, right?
John Johansen:
These accidents did not include passengers such as those in the bed of a truck. These were actual passengers within a motor vehicle only.
Assemblyman Sherer:
For my son, we had a clip that adjusted the seat belt. Could you use that as part of the child restraint system?
John Johansen:
I will let Mr. Guevin answer that. He is a certified technician and understands all of the intricate things up closely.
Eric Guevin:
I’m also the Director of Community Education that runs a certified national technical program. Those devices are not approved by the government, because they attempt to pull the seat belt down to fit the child. It alters the way the seat belt is designed to protect the occupant. What can happen in a crash is the child can either be ejected or still injured. Even though it says it meets all current standards, it is misleading to the consumer, because there are no federal standards for that device. It is considered an “after-market product.” It has had no crash testing done.
Assemblyman Knecht:
The CIREN report focuses on economic cost impact. It talks about what happens in certain catastrophic accident outcomes. It does not give a comprehensive social cost-benefit analysis of the proposal that shows the net benefits to society from this proposal exceeds the net benefit costs. I am wondering if you all have any such analysis.
John Johansen:
The specific numbers for the total costs of the fatalities have been estimated at between $2 million and $4 million. It would include quality of life and loss of earnings and other costs. I do not know of any specific studies that look just at the cost of a child, for example. I do know that when our Department of Transportation does their cost benefit analysis for engineering designs and changes, they are using a cost of $2 million per fatal crash, as the cost that they are looking at when they are designing highway structures.
Assemblyman Knecht:
My concern is, what we have heard is half of the equation. What is the cost, $2 to $4 million? I’m familiar with those kinds of figures on one side due to a catastrophic event. We haven’t heard what the cost is to families, what the cost is to society of implementing this measure, or had some showing that there is a net social benefit over the amount of the cost. That is what I am trying to get at here. If you look at this data, you see all kinds of catastrophic outcomes associated with the current use of regular safety belt systems. Had we had the same proposals before us, with the same analysis, at the time the current safety belt laws were provided, I will bet we would not have seen the demonstrations in this packet of the costs to society that is caused by those safety belts to children who are injured by them. That would go into the net social cost-benefit analysis. I am asking for some estimate or verification.
Chairwoman Chowning:
If you can’t answer that, then will the other people who are coming to the table please keep that question in mind? Now we are going to go to Las Vegas so they can have a chance to testify.
Jeanne Cosgrove, R.N., Executive Director, Clark County Safe Kids Coalition; Injury Prevention Coordinator, Sunrise Children’s Hospital; Child/Passenger Safety Instructor, Las Vegas:
[Introduced herself] I was the 49th safety instructor trained, and now there are 30,000 instructors across the nation. I am here today to tell you about a couple of programs that are already in effect in Clark County. As part of the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, we have many grants available to purchase car seats for low-income families and “at-risk” children. Currently, we have one specific grant that covers about $50,000 per year for those children.
We have a Court Diversion Program already up and running, and we have been utilizing that Court Diversion Program for the past three years. It has covered only children under the age of 5 and less than 40 pounds, since that is what the law was at the time. We wanted to make the Committee aware that the Program is already in place and if the law passes to require booster seats, we have plenty of funding. We already have the program here in Clark County to service any of the offenders who come through the Program and have their ticket either reduced or waived. I also want to indicate that both Clark County SAFE KIDS and Washoe County SAFE KIDS do have minority outreach coordinators on staff. We both have people who are able to teach these classes in Spanish, since we know our Spanish population has grown to 24 percent.
I don’t have specific numbers handy for Assemblyman Knecht’s question, but we do know a fatality costs $2 million to society; we do know the cost of a booster seat to a family is $15. There is such a huge difference in that cost, besides obviously what that child means to that family.
Erin Breen, Director, Safe Community Partnership, Transportation Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
[Introduced herself] I want to talk about what we do within the Research Center, the annual observational survey, which is done throughout the state of Nevada for child passenger restraint. This is done in tandem with the overall seat belt usage rates for the state. There is a team with specific sites throughout the state of Nevada where they go and observe both adults wearing seat belts and children being restrained, either in the rear-facing position, under the age of 1, or in the forward-facing position, over the age of 1. What the survey finds, unfortunately, is that overall, Nevada is about 30 percent lower than the national average for child safety seat usage.
We know we do a great job with infants; we have usage rates for infants that are 95 to 100 percent. When you are talking about small children, ages 1 to 3, we do a good job with children in child safety seats. SAFE KIDS has done a fabulous job of making parents aware and educating them about the importance of child safety seats. What happens is, the children become uncomfortable in those seats, and they want out of them. Truthfully, they start to outgrow them, so children are being placed in vehicles with safety belt systems that don’t fit them. I think what we need to point out to you today is that booster seats position a seat belt so there is no undue pressure on the internal organs from the hip side of an adult belt, and from the shoulder restraint system not fitting them properly.
If you have children or grandchildren who are traveling in a vehicle without a booster seat when they aren’t large enough for the safety belt, what you find is that they take the seat belt and pop it behind their back, or they pull it under their shoulder. The children are then riding in a vehicle, putting themselves in more jeopardy, when they take the shoulder belt and pop it behind their back. There is no protection if they are in a rear collision or a forward collision. There is nothing holding them in the seat. The added impact to the bottom portion of the seat belt being locked can, in fact, kill that child with internal injuries. A booster seat is not difficult to use.
We are finding it is the children ages 3- to 5-years old who are traveling at a greater rate of exposure than the younger kids, because they’re having trouble fitting in their seats. If they go to a full booster seat with a 5-point restraint system, it fits them. A child seat can graduate to a booster seat. These children are the ones surviving these terrible crashes, and walking away without a scratch, because they are properly restrained in the vehicle. When you see a child bouncing around in the backseat of a car, and we say to ourselves, “I think there is a law that kids aren’t allowed to do that,” these are the children we are talking about, because they are uncomfortable in an adult seat belt.
[Erin Breen] We wholeheartedly support S.B. 116. We remind you that this is the child we call the “forgotten child.” It isn’t that we didn’t put laws into place; it’s that research did not tell us until recently how to solve the problem. It is a very simple solution, and we have lots of programs available for parents who cannot afford a child safety seat. We have educational programs that we are already doing. By having the benefit of saying there is a law that says to keep your child in a booster seat, it makes our education of the parents of children so much easier.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you for all of the good work that you do. We will come back to Carson City to ask about what other states are doing. It looks like in the NCSL (The National Conference of State Legislatures) backup that states are all over the map. Some have requirements of 60 pounds or less, and some have requirement of 80 pounds and more. How did we end up with the standard of less than 9 years and less than 80 pounds?
Jeanne Cosgrove:
We wanted the bill to go in exact parallel with the national recommendations. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children ride in booster seats until they are 8 years old, and 80 pounds. The National SAFE KIDS Campaign has the same policy. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and The National Safety Transportation Board recommend children ride in booster seats until that age. The minimum weight requirement in a vehicle for a seat belt is 80 pounds. That is what a lot of people don’t know. That is the vehicle manufacturer’s recommendations.
Lisa Foster, Representative, American Automobile Association, Nevada:
[Introduced herself] I have with me Melanie Gilmour, who is our Child/Passenger Safety Specialist. I will speak briefly and then turn it over to Ms. Gilmore, who will discuss how a booster seat works in a crash. We are very much in support of S.B. 116. AAA (American Automobile Association) has been working nationwide to close the gaps in car seat laws and educate caregivers that they need to place children in appropriate car seats for their age and size. Traffic crashes kill more children each year than all childhood diseases combined.
I would also like to tell you about a booster seat opinion survey that was conducted by the Children’s Research Council. They found that 85 percent of people thought it was an “excellent” or “good” idea for children ages 4 to 8 to be put into a booster seat. In the 17 states and Washington D.C., that already require booster seats, 86 percent of parents with at least one child under 21 said the law is an excellent or good idea. Many parents look to the state, and to the legislature, as the model for determining what is the safest way to transport their children. Without passing a booster seat law, parents may actually believe that once a child weighs 40 pounds, he or she is completely safe in his or her seat belt.
[Lisa Foster] As you heard, many children put seat belts over their heads, because they cut right into their necks. I am going to stop here, and let you know that in California, we did an educational campaign that we would like to do in Nevada too. The law would take a year and a half to go into effect, and we would do a public relations campaign to make sure people know this law will be going into effect, so they can be prepared. We will do posters and fliers at daycare centers and schools around the state so we can prepare people.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Ms. Foster, what is the law in California?
Lisa Foster:
California’s law is 6 years and 60 pounds, which means until your sixth birthday.
Melanie Gilmour, Child Passenger Specialist, American Automobile Association, Nevada:
[Introduced herself] I have been involved in this field for 9 years. I want to give you an idea of crash dynamics. In the United States, most of our impacts are head on collisions. Seat belts and crash dynamics are really set up for head on collisions. There are two different kinds of seat belts: lap belts only and lap and shoulder belts. Lap belts are mainly designed to keep a passenger from being ejected from the vehicle. They hold the lower half of the body down, and hold a person into the vehicle. A lap and shoulder belt allows the passenger to ride down the crash; it goes across the chest. When you are in a frontal impact, the passenger goes forward and the seat belt actually stretches and allows the passenger to ride it down. It is positioned over the strongest points of the passenger’s body, their hips and their clavicle and shoulder, and disburses the energy of the crash across the entire torso.
When children are put into a vehicle seat, usually at 40 pounds, the harness system that people typically associate with a car seat expires at 40 pounds. These children will go into two different types of restraints. They can go into a seat belt restraint, or they can go into a booster seat. I would like to explain the dynamics of both so you will understand why booster seats are preferred. When a child sits down on the vehicle seat, the length between the bending of their knees and their back is relatively small compared to the depth of that vehicle seat. For children to sit comfortably, they actually have to slump forward, so that their knees can fall over the vehicle seat. If they don’t, their legs stick straight out and they are not comfortable.
[Melanie Gilmour] As the child slouches down, their lap belt moves up and away from the strong points of their hip bones and right into their abdomen, where there is no skeletal structure to support it. The shoulder belt comes up across their face. Let’s pretend there is a child in the middle of the backseat with a lap belt alone. When they get into that crash, the belt is away from the strong points of their body, and is into their abdomen. What we typically see in a frontal collision crash is that the child will move forward at the same speed the car is going. If the car is traveling at 45 miles per hour, the child is actually moving 45 miles per hour. The lap belt will hold the lower portion of the body in place, so it slows down; the upper body is still moving.
This is the same type of crash dynamic for an adult wearing this type of seat belt. Because that lap belt is holding the lower portion of their body in place, so much pressure is being put on their organs that, in this situation, we usually see a lacerated liver or a punctured spleen. In severe cases, we can see an actual bend in their spinal cord, which can cause paralysis, death, or life-altering injuries. Their upper body is going to keep moving until it comes in contact with something like the vehicle seat in front, or even their knees, so we see quite a few injuries.
When we move to a shoulder and lap belt, you see the same types of abdominal injuries that we see with a lap belt alone. Now, because that shoulder belt was such a nuisance being in their face, which we can all understand, they take the shoulder belt and logically put it underneath their arm and their armpit. That takes the shoulder belt away from the strong points of their shoulder and their clavicle, and it puts the force on their rib cage. In a collision, a person’s rib cage can be very similar to chicken bones. It breaks very easily, and can puncture internal organs such as the lungs. If the child puts the shoulder belt behind them, then we have the exact same crash dynamics as a lap belt alone.
A booster seat raises the child up, so the child sits in a seat as an adult would. It allows their knees to bend more comfortably over the edge of the booster seat. They are brought up to an adult height, so the shoulder belt is no longer in their face. If the shoulder belt is just touching them, it is no big deal, because these boosters come with what is called a “comfort clip.” The comfort clip holds the seat belt away just enough so that it is not bothering them. Most children enjoy being in the booster seat. One of the biggest reasons why they didn’t enjoy it before was because not all children were required to have it, and they would feel like they wanted to hide their booster seat. Now all children have to have it, so they really enjoy it.
[Melanie Gilmour] The injuries I talked to you about are referred to as “seat belt syndrome.” If you talk to children’s hospitals or you look at research and you see “seat belt syndrome,” everything I just explained falls into that category. Thank you so much for allowing me to come in and testify today.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Your knowledge of the subject is greatly respected.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
That was a very good presentation. We are talking in general terms. California has a law of 6 years old or 60 pounds, and Nevada is trying to do 8 years old or 80 pounds. Regardless of which one may seem to be correct, every child’s body is built differently. Whether 60 pounds or 80 pounds, some are tall and slim, and others are short and stout. How can we really come up with a number that is satisfactory for everybody? I believe this should be left up to their parents’ discretion, whether they should be in a seat belt according to their body size. How is this going to be enforced? Is law enforcement going to have to carry a scale around with them?
Bob Roshak, Sergeant, Las Vegas Metro Police; Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association:
[Introduced himself] I was a former traffic officer, writing tickets for people who violated various traffic regulations. When I encountered an individual with a child who wasn’t in a seat, the citation was written. If the child appeared to be at the weight or age requirement where they needed to be in one, a lot of times a simple question to the operator of the motor vehicle would be enough for them to tell you the answer and to cooperate.
Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
[Introduced himself] I was involved in an accident about five years ago where a woman pulled in front of me, and she had two children in her car, both of whom were about 4 to 5 years old. Neither of them was wearing their seat belt, because they were uncomfortable. When she pulled in front of me, I was in a police car. Fortunately, I was going about 25 miles per hour, and she was going about 5 to 10 mile per hour. From a driver’s point of view, it scared me witless. Even though the accident was not my fault, what scared me was the idea of having those children unsecured. Let’s think about where we have come from and where we are going with this. What are we doing to protect our children? On behalf of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, we support this legislation, and we think we are moving in the right direction.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Because we are a tourist state, I want to know what the other states are doing. California is at 6 years old and 60 pounds, so when you cross the state line you are in violation. Utah is at 4 years old and 40 pounds; Oregon is at 5 years old and 60 pounds, and Idaho at 3 years old and 40 pounds. It is going to be extremely difficult for some people who are traveling in these different states. I realize S.B. 116 is about saving children, and I agree with that.
Jeanne Cosgrove:
I just want to compare the 6 years old and 60 pounds to the 8 years old and 80 pounds. If we compromise, and lower our bill to 6 years old and 60 pounds, then we are going to have forgotten children in the age group from 6 to 8 years of age. If we keep our bill strong and go by the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics and all the other national organizations, we will not have any forgotten children in our state.
Eric Guevin:
We have to remember, the problem is in the engineering. The seat belts are engineered for someone who is 4 feet, 9 inches, and weighs at least 80 pounds. That is the gap we are trying to make up for. You have the child safety seat that goes from 4 years old to 40 pounds. What are you going to do with the child that falls in the middle? That is the gap we are trying to bridge. The understanding is that we need to protect the child from being ejected from the vehicle. There is a story in your packet (Exhibit I) about a child in Reno whose parents had him in a seat belt, and he was ejected out of the vehicle. The vehicle rolled over the top of him. He was in a trauma center for some time with injuries. The seat belt system did not fit that child. Children need to be boosted to protect them. We are shooting for 8 years old because that is the average age when a child weighs about 80 pounds. Why don’t we save time, protect the children, and keep it at 80 pounds.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I think your statement is absolutely correct. Why should we take partial steps to protect children? If we really mean what we say, that we want to protect children, then what keeps us from doing the best job we can? If 80 pounds is the limit for safety and graduation to seat belts, then I don’t understand why we would want to just go half way. Why don’t we take a brave stand and show them that we really mean what we say?
Assemblyman Oceguera:
I was asked to inform you that the firefighters of Nevada are in support of this bill. It is not coming from me, but from Mr. Callister and the firefighters of Nevada. I support it as well.
Eric Guevin:
I would like to say for the record that Rocky Gonzalez, a trooper from Elko, was unable to be here today, but he wanted me to state his support of this bill.
Shannon Greguras, Las Vegas Police Protection Association of Civilian Employees:
[Introduced herself] One thing that has not happened here is something that happened in the Senate. My son testified on this bill for the Senate about a month ago. He was not able to make it today, but I wish he could have, because I think you need to hear a child’s perspective. He is 7 years old, and he was using a seat belt. What I didn’t know was for a long time, he was putting the seat belt under his arm. I caught him doing this at one point, and said, “Jacob, you have got to stop doing that.” He put it back, and it cut across his neck. He said, “Mommy, I do that because it hurts me terribly, and when you stop suddenly, it goes right into my neck.” So we did purchase the booster seat. On behalf of him, I would like you to know that. My association of 1,800 people is in support of this bill. Thank you.
Christine Kuhl, Administrative Office of the Courts:
[Introduced herself] Justice Becker testified earlier in the hearing with regard to replacing “the Court” with “the Department of Public Safety.” I have identified a third occurrence of that reference in this bill. I would like to amend our proposed amendment. It is on page 2, line 3, and it is the third occurrence we would like to replace with“ the Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety.”
Chairwoman Chowning:
We are going to close the hearing on S.B. 116; we are not going to vote on it today. We will open the hearing on S.B. 149. Thank you, everyone, who testified today for caring about the children of Nevada. Welcome, Senator Schneider.
Senate Bill 149 (1st Reprint): Authorizes Director of Department of Motor Vehicles to enter into agreements with private entities for certain placements of advertisements. (BDR 43-765)
Senator Michael A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 11:
[Introduced himself] I bring this bill before you and explain that what it does is very simple. It allows the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to enter into an agreement for advertising at DMV offices across the state. There are a couple of ways the DMV could advertise. One would be in mailers and the other would be a thing like reader boards. I have a bill looking for funding for education this year, to fund education in this state at the national average. Even though it has a lot of merit, I am looking at other ways to get money for education. I looked at this and thought advertising at the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles), where people stand in line, would be a good opportunity to pick up some dollars for the Department and also for education. I earmarked the advertising dollars that could possibly be made here for the public schools and the charter schools that offer driver’s education. They could use those dollars in their driver’s education departments to offset that expense.
Chairwoman Chowning:
This is an advertising bill, and if the Department of Motor Vehicles chooses to advertise a product in some way inside one of their buildings, the money raised would go directly to help them with their budget. If they choose to advertise in a piece of mail, then those funds raised would go to schools to fund drivers education?
Senator Schneider:
No, it is just the opposite of that.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I apologize; if they advertise a product in some way inside one of their buildings, then the money raised would go to schools to fund driver’s education. If they choose to advertise in a piece of mail, the money goes to help them with their budget.
Senator Schneider:
That is correct.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Would they be able to do political advertising?
Senator Schneider:
The Department is going to draw up some regulations. In the Senate, we didn’t discuss political advertising, but we did discuss things like strip clubs. We envisioned that the Department would sign a contract with one advertising company who would then sell the advertising, and the Department would call for an agreement that the advertising does not inhibit or disrupt the function of the Department. When you stop and think about it, who will really advertise in there? It will probably be floral shops, a jewelry store, and automobile repair shops. Strip clubs and other things that you might frown on are geared more for tourists, not for locals, so it really is not going to be hard to regulate that at all. The Department would have ultimate control over the “master advertiser.”
Assemblyman Gustavson:
One of the items I would like to see advertised in there is car seats and booster seats. It would be a great place to do it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Mr. Colling, did you ask for this bill?
Dennis Colling, Chief Administrator, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:
[Introduced himself] We did not ask for the bill, it is Senator Schneider’s bill, but we are in support of it. I would like to point out that there is a small fiscal note attached to this to pay for regulation and review by the LCB (Legislative Counsel Bureau) staff. It is $2,252 in the first fiscal year; that was submitted prior to it being heard in the Senate to the LCB Fiscal Division.
Assemblyman Collins:
In the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) offices, there are signs everywhere telling people what lines to get in. Where in those buildings would you put advertising except for maybe in the restrooms?
Dennis Colling:
The reader boards themselves could be used for advertisements. If we’re going to be generating revenue for the State by advertising in there, we will set certain areas aside. It will not be as elaborate as what you see in the airports. We anticipate tasteful advertising in the lines. In the mailings the Department sends out, we are in touch with most of Nevada. I believe there are people who would be interested in approaching us to advertise in there. We do not anticipate supplying our list to any advertisers. We anticipate them supplying us with the inserts to be put into the mailings. We already do such mailings for Nevada Magazine.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is there a ballpark figure of what kind of funds you think could be derived from this?
Senator Schneider:
I don’t have an exact answer. I have talked to some people who are quite anxious about this. We don’t even know how many sites will try this. There is a lot of opportunity for advertising dollars.
Chairwoman Chowning:
On a monthly basis, how many mailers are sent out?
Dennis Colling:
It is hundreds of thousands. We send out a registration notice for every vehicle in the state, and to 25 percent of all of the drivers’ licenses, since we are on a four-year rotation renewal system. It is a very large figure.
Senator Schneider:
What the Department of Motor Vehicles will do is negotiate a contract with one advertising company or individual and they will split the revenue. This will benefit the children of the state.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are other states doing this?
Senator Schneider:
I have no idea. I have not researched that.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I want to understand correctly. If you had a renewal going out, you would stuff advertisements in it, correct?
Senator Schneider:
Yes.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I think when you have an official document you should not add junk mail to it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I believe in the state of Wyoming, there is a special license plate in which the funds go to fund the Division of Conservation. In tough fiscal times, even state agencies get creative for ways to try to raise money. This is an interesting idea; it is just something we are not used to. We are going to close the hearing on S.B. 149. Thank you, Senator Schneider.
We have a couple of other things to take up. We have one resolution introduction, BDR–1169 (A.C.R. 22), that commends the Highway Watch Program and planned participation of the Nevada Transport Association.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR-1169.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It’s a resolution to commend the Highway Watch Program. In several states, truck drivers are trained to take part in vigilance, helping with homeland security, and Nevada is going to participate as well. This will be a launch of the Nevada program.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Collins:
I wasn’t sure if I understood your explanation. I thought when you said “highway watch,” it was for all the people in southern Nevada and the “spaghetti bowl” in Reno that were sitting there, watching.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Good question – truck drivers and their driving, they are the ones watching. You’ll hear more about it in the presentation.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Senate Bill 276: Makes various changes to provisions relating to California-Nevada Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission. (BDR 58-820)
Chairwoman Chowning:
We have one bill that we’ve heard that we can take action on; that was on the Super Speed train, S.B. 276. There was no amendment.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 276.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you, Committee. We are adjourned. [Adjourned at 3:45 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Erin Channell
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: