MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
May 15, 2003
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 2:12 p.m., on Thursday, May 15, 2003. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
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 Maurice Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
Kim Morgan, Committee Counsel
Nancy Elder, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Sande, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association
Richard West, President, Jones West Ford; Partner of Fletcher Jones, Las Vegas
Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles
The Assembly Committee on Transportation will come to order. We will start as a subcommittee. [The secretary called roll.] We need a motion to rescind the action on S.B. 355 because we have to amend the bill again.
Senate Bill 355 (1st Reprint): Extends coverage of provisions relating to motor vehicles to include certain recreational vehicles. (BDR 43-1238)
Chairwoman Chowning:
I would like the record to show we are now a full Committee and we have a quorum.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO RESCIND THE ACTION WHEREBY S.B. 355 WAS AMENDED AND PASSED ON MAY 6, 2003.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Chairwoman Chowning:
This is the section of statute that we proudly put into place in 1999 protecting franchises of automobile dealers. This bill now adds recreational vehicles to that protection. There is a very important matter that has to be taken up, and we’ll reopen this bill for just a few moments to add an amendment (Exhibit C).
John Sande, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association:
[Introduced himself.]
John Sande:
Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association is requesting another amendment to NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) Chapter 482. That’s the chapter that regulates franchises granted to dealers by manufacturers of automobiles, and now, if this passes, it would also include RVs [recreational vehicles].
It has come to our attention that there’s a problem with the way disputes are handled regarding termination of a dealership or expanding and adding another dealer to a market area. This was all set forth in 1995 and 1999 when the Legislature passed a franchise law regulating the relationships between dealers and manufacturers. I’ll give you an example of what’s happened and why we feel this needs to be changed.
Under the law, if a manufacturer wants to challenge a dealer as far as its operation of a franchise, they can file a request with the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] that the dealership’s franchise be terminated. The dealer can contest it, and, if it’s contested, there will be a hearing before an independent third party designated by the DMV to determine whether there’s good cause to terminate the dealership. Even though you amended the law, manufacturers, by and large, ignore the law in Nevada.
I have had two dealerships, one in Las Vegas and one in Fallon, who have shown me proposed contracts with a manufacturer. The manufacturer has intentionally left out a lot of the language we have in our franchise laws. The dealers don’t want to take on a manufacturer because, if they do, they oftentimes risk termination. The manufacturer will say, “We’re going to go after you.” The dealers come to me and ask, “What do we do?” We have them send a letter basically saying, “Even though the contract doesn’t say this, I assume that you are going to comply with Nevada law.”
I have a dealer in Elko, for example, who runs a great dealership, and, because times are tough, the manufacturer is threatening to close the dealership because the capital requirements are not as high as the manufacturer would like, even though they are running a great shop.
Although the statute says that manufacturers must reimburse a dealer for warranty work that the dealer performs at the same rate as the dealer charges customers, the statute is being totally ignored. The dealer basically says, “I can’t contest that because, if I do, I’m going to be terminated. They’re going to find a reason to terminate me.” A manufacturer will compile a list. For example, he’ll do a survey, maybe in California, and will say this is how many cars were sold by the average dealer in California. Then he will compare that to Nevada. He’ll say, “You’re deficient. You haven’t sold enough sedans.” You say, “Wait a second, this is 4-wheel drive country; we sell trucks.” The manufacturer will get a file and try to find grounds to terminate you.
[John Sande continues.] Currently we have a dealer in Reno who, since 1995, has been embattled with a manufacturer who is trying to terminate the dealership. The dealer has expended over $1.5 million. He has been successful before the DMV showing that the manufacturer did not have good cause to terminate. Now, even though he has spent over $1.5 million fighting it, the manufacturer is going to appeal it. It has already been to the Supreme Court twice, and it will go again.
Our amendment proposes that if, after a hearing, the Director of the DMV determines that the manufacturer failed to establish good cause to terminate, or refuses to continue, modify, or replace a franchise, or to establish an additional dealership or relocate an existing dealership, the Director shall award the dealer attorney’s fees and costs expended in fighting this improper attempt to terminate or otherwise refuse to continue. This would be something obviously the dealer would have to go after from the manufacturer to try to recover.
Somebody might argue, “Why isn’t it both ways? Why don’t we provide if the manufacturer is successful in showing good cause, shouldn’t the dealer pay the attorney’s fees and costs that the manufacturer has expended?” My argument to that is the following: Right now, under existing law, the manufacturer, if he gets upset with the dealer – and I’ve seen this happen, I have dealt with them and actually gone before the DMV – in every case, the manufacturer has no incentive to negotiate. He’s much bigger and has much larger resources. He will just say, “Look, what’s the worst that can happen? The worst that can happen is I lose; the dealer stays in. I spent some attorney’s fees and time. No big deal.”
What happens on the other hand, if you take the other side, and it’s determined that the dealer had good cause to terminate, and therefore the Director decides that the franchise is terminated? In that case, what’s happened to the dealer? The dealer not only expends attorney’s fees and costs fighting the matter, but basically the dealer has lost a valuable franchise. He’s lost his livelihood. In termination, basically the manufacturer just has to buy back parts and the new automobiles for the same amount that was paid to him. The manufacturer can just walk away.
This bill is an attempt to prevent a manufacturer from just saying, “We don’t like what that dealer did. We don’t like the fact that that dealer hired an attorney to contest the fact that our contracts don’t comply with Nevada law, so we‘re going to try to find a reason to terminate him.” If they do it now and they are unsuccessful in showing good cause under this proposed amendment, attorney’s fees and costs would be avoided.
Chairwoman Chowning:
What if a dealer really is not acting with good business practice? Shouldn’t the manufacturer be able to try to terminate and cut their losses while they can?
John Sande:
Absolutely.
Chairwoman Chowning:
What is to protect the other side? When this passes, the manufacturers will know that they are required to pay all of the attorneys’ fees either way? I’m very proud of the excellent auto dealers that we have. As we heard before, some have been in business since 1929. However, what’s to keep a business that is not operating properly from just playing the court game then, just running it through the courts knowing that they won’t have to pay any fees?
John Sande:
All of the dealers I have represented in our firm and others I know, unlike the manufacturer, don’t have huge resources and legal departments. Dealers have to hire an attorney who is going to be charging them. Obviously they’re going to be paying those fees. I know a dealership in Elko. If they were challenged, they would probably not even fight it, because they couldn’t afford to fight it. Another point is, when you contest it before the Director of the DMV, the manufacturers are back in Michigan. You cannot subpoena them, as I understand it, because you are not in court. You are before the DMV. If you want to take depositions, you have to send your lawyer back to Michigan to do that. That’s very costly. The real kicker is that if you lose, you lose your franchise. You lose your ability to do business, and, therefore, you have lost your livelihood. That is a huge penalty, because you have invested all this money to build up the franchise.
One of the reasons we put in the franchise laws is because of the huge investments required to be in the automobile business. Not only would you not want to spend the money fighting termination, but also, if you did lose, you would be losing your franchise. I can tell you, from my experience, any time this occurs, the dealers want to negotiate with the manufacturer so they don’t risk that potential. This would basically even the playing field, and it would encourage a manufacturer to say, “Do I really have a good case, or am I just going to do this because I feel like getting rid of this dealer today?”
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Maybe this is just because it’s the first reprint of the bill, but I thought we had excluded the odometer reading of 2,500 miles.
John Sande:
I think the first reprint was from the Senate. It has not been reprinted, so the second reprint, when it goes to the Floor, will have that exclusion, as well as this amendment, if you adopt it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We have the bill on the Floor in second reading today. Because the original amendment had not been adopted yet, we were able to bring the bill back to Committee, and now we will have this included in the original amendment.
Richard West, President, Jones West Ford; Partner, Fletcher Jones, Las Vegas:
[Introduced himself. Provided Exhibit D.] Back in 1995, Ford Motor Company was buying up several markets in the nation, and they moved to terminate our franchise. We’re still not 100 percent sure why. It’s taken eight years to get through this termination proceeding. There were numerous delays to take depositions. We took 12 depositions, which involved 53,000 miles of airplane flights with attorneys. The manufacturers just made it very difficult. They can outlast and outspend you. You are at a significant disadvantage. Smaller dealers are unable to have a dispute because of the potential cost involved. That’s why it’s important that this bill and amendment get passed. It will be good for business in Nevada. I think it will slow down some of the traffic at the Department of Motor Vehicles with hearings. I would like to see the amendment, and I hope all of you support it.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO RECONSIDER S.B. 355.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Knecht, Mr. Manendo, and Mr. Oceguera were absent for the vote.)
Chairwoman Chowning:
Now the Chair will accept a motion to amend the bill. Remember, the prior amendment that we had was regarding the 18 month age of the vehicle and the fact that it would not be considered a new vehicle if it were registered. In addition to that language, this language will be added.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO ADD A NEW AMENDMENT ADDRESSING REGISTRATION AND MILEAGE ISSUES AND TO DO PASS S.B. 355.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Collins:
I understand we rescinded by two-thirds, but we don’t need two-thirds to pass this amendment. Is that correct? We just need a simple majority to pass this amendment?
Chairwoman Chowning:
That’s correct.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Knecht was absent for the vote.)
Chairwoman Chowning:
The agenda for today includes S.B. 384. It has been requested that this bill be withdrawn, so there will be no hearing on S.B. 384.
Senate Bill 384 (1st Reprint): Requires Department of Motor Vehicles to establish pilot program to contract with persons to provide certain services otherwise required to be provided by Department. (BDR S-1154)
[Not heard.]
Chairwoman Chowning:
The next matter of business we will take up is Senate Bill 356.
Senate Bill 356 (1st Reprint): Revises penalty for certain violations concerning vehicles with loads on highways. (BDR 43-1049)
Chairwoman Chowning:
We had a question from a couple of members. Ms. Paslov Thomas did find, in the Nevada Administrative Code [NAC] the definition of “load.”
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst:
“Load,” under NAC 484.470, is defined as “any commodity, equipment, manufactured housing, structure, or other item placed on the vehicle so that it may be transported.”
Assemblyman Collins:
I want you to address the hay trucks going up and down the highway with straw and leaves blowing off. How are they addressed currently versus what this bill would do? Are they going to have to be tarped and covered or wrapped or contained or in a boxed trailer? Do we have this language?
Chairwoman Chowning:
Currently, on the first page of the bill, line 9, the existing language says “no person shall operate on any highway any vehicle with any load unless the load and any covering thereon is securely fastened so as to prevent. . .” I think that answers the question. Currently it has to be fastened “so as to prevent the covering or load from becoming loose, detached, or in any manner a hazard to other users on the highway.”
Assemblyman Collins:
For clarification, does NRS 484 apply to a different kind of hauling? Is there an agriculture exemption in this statute, or is there some other language in another part of the statute that maybe we need to look at before we process this? Some loads are sealed loads, and some are not sealed loads going down the road. I read this as no vehicle shall be driven or moved on a highway unless such vehicle is so constructed or loaded as to prevent dropping or shifting. That sand may be dropped for the purpose of securing traction, or water for, I’m sure, dust control. Do we have an agricultural exemption somewhere in another statute? Who’s going to stop somebody and write him a $25 ticket?
Chairwoman Chowning:
Ms. Thomas is looking that up. I believe that what Senator Washington wants to do is amend this bill to just say, “A person who violates this Section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 for minor violations.” He just wants to leave it “not to exceed $25 for minor violations.” In lines 14 and 15, he stated that he wants it to say, “A person who violates this Section shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $25 for minor violations.”
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Coming from an agricultural district, I share Assemblyman Collins’ concern. You can be fined for not sweeping off your deck after you unload. As far as tying a load down, especially hay trucks, it just depends on the person who stops you. Under the law, I believe you have to have a strap or a tie on every bale, and technically, they can make you tie or secure every joint in that trailer. I think, unfortunately, where we’re headed with this legislation is to require tarping to haul hay, or at least a cargo net. Otherwise you’re not going to be able to truly say it was secure. I guess you just look at it and decide how many $25 fines you can have.
Assemblyman Collins:
Regarding the language “not to exceed $25,” in Clark County, we require those trucks to be tarped and covered to go out to the landfill, for example. There’s always incidental trash coming out of those nets and those tarps from the trash trucks, as well as the sand and gravel trucks around town. They’re not going to stop them for $25. The drivers aren’t going to worry about a cover, if it’s only a $25 fine or less. I think we’re going the wrong way here.
The other point of strapping down is very strict. I know that hay trucks come to my place all the time, and they’re tying and retying. They have to have everything tied down. There’s no way that you’re going to stop leaves of hay and stems off of those bales from blowing out as you’re going down the road. There’re going to be incidents of it. I just want to be careful where we go with this bill.
Senator Maurice Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2:
[Introduced himself.] I think we have come up with a compromise that may work for everyone’s benefit. To the original requester of the bill, if we could amend Section 3 of the bill and go back to the original language of the bill, which states, “A person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $25 per violation,” for a minor offense or violation. We have “violation” in there twice, so it should probably read “$25 per minor violation.”
Chairwoman Chowning:
If we look at the original bill on line 15, all we would do is add the word “minor” before “violation.” That is Senator Washington’s request.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I wonder why the Senator brought this bill.
Senator Washington:
I have a constituent, Mr. Tom Noblett, owner, Tom’s Hauling, who approached me. He has a small moving company that hauls rubbish, cardboard, and recyclable goods. He has gone down the freeway a couple of times on a blustery day with his load tied down, and yet pieces have fallen out. He’s been fined $175 for each incident. He said, “I don’t mind being fined, but I don’t want to be fined because I took all precautions to secure the load. I can’t help the weather.”
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Mr. Noblett is also my constituent. I am glad that Senator Washington brought this bill forward. I agree with going back to the original language, but a question comes up about hay falling out of a truck. According to this bill, I don’t think we’re changing anything that is existing law. I think that is just left to the discretion of the officer. The load wouldn’t have to be covered. I share those concerns of Mr. Goicoechea and Mr. Collins because I drive myself. I don’t think we’re changing the law in that aspect in any way. All we’re going to do is to put a $25 fine on it. Correct? [Senator Washington agreed.]
Assemblyman Collins:
Is Washoe County required to cover their loads like we are in Clark County?
Senator Washington:
Yes, we are.
Assemblyman Collins:
That’s a move in the right direction. If it only costs me $25 for another rope or nylon strap, I’d rather pay the $25 once in awhile when I get caught, if I get caught, than to go buy that tie-down. However, if some debris comes off that truck and causes a fatal accident on a major road – just a few months ago my son, driving through Salt Lake City, had something come off a truck. It did serious damage to him and his vehicle and required medical treatment. I don’t know if, on that highway, there was only a $25 fine, so the driver didn’t care how well he tied down, but I think the point is the consequences that can result from something like that. If it’s a $25-or-less fine, a highway patrolman isn’t going to bother to pull him over, and we’re going to have trash all over the road. Then we’re going to have to hire some more state or county employees to clean the road up, or we’re going to get some more honor camp people to clean the road up, and someone gets run over in the process.
I don’t see how we could go down to less than a $25 fine on something that serious. First of all, tying down a load of property and using the right equipment to haul it – I’ve had a commercial driver’s license (CDL) since I was 18-years-old. I’ve hauled a lot of stuff. I think there are more things to consider than just “Tom-the-Hauler” getting busted a couple of times. Maybe Tom-the-Hauler needs to buy some rope or net. I appreciate your concerns; I understand the little guy getting picked on.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Before you respond, Senator Washington, the dollar amount has come up from a lot of members. I’m wondering if you might consider saying “not more than $100 per violation” or “a minimum of $25 to a maximum of $100” because at least that would give some more flexibility for more serious violations, but perhaps it wouldn’t be as much as $175.
Senator Washington:
First, in response to your request, I think giving some flexibility to the officer for a minor violation $25 to $100 would be fine. I don’t see a problem with that.
To Mr. Collins, I think those drivers are conscientious and public safety-minded, and usually professional haulers do take the time to secure their loads. Whether you’re a small hauler or Granite Construction, you want to take into consideration other travelers on the freeway or highway. This bill is not an attempt to go after those people. It’s basically to say, “Hey, look, you’ve done a good job. We recognize the fact that you have taken the time to secure your load but something did fly off, and it does take time for someone to pick it up.” It gives them that discretion. For those who are major violators, you can go beyond $100. I think current law is what? $175? I don’t even know if it’s in law. It could be anything. It’s totally up to the officer, but at least this bill gives some parameters for minor violations. If the officer deems that it’s not a minor violation, then it’s to his discretion.
Assemblyman Collins:
For example, is the $175 fine maybe a $150 fine and a $25 court charge?
Senator Washington:
That’s possible.
Assemblyman Collins:
We have existing littering laws that might be in another statute. Some are local and some might be state. I want to make sure we’re not in conflict with litter laws, whether it’s a cigarette pack out the window or whether it’s a piece of material off your cargo load. You’re basically caught under those. It’s the same kind of thing. Some of those laws result in $500 to $1,000 fines in Clark County. It’s posted on the state road. I don’t know if it’s in our statutes or not under littering. I believe you can be charged with littering when something comes off your vehicle. Are we changing those laws unintentionally with this chapter? That’s my question. Have you researched that when you brought this up?
Senator Washington:
The way the bill is written I think it addresses the fact that it goes beyond litter. It deals with a load, and it says, “No vehicle with a load may be driven or moved on any highway unless the vehicle is constructed or loaded so as to prevent. . .” The operative word here is “load” as opposed to “litter.” We’re dealing with the actual load of a vehicle or, in this case, a truck. Litter laws would basically be garbage bags or containers or dispensers or cigarette butts.
Assemblyman Collins:
That is my question. Sometimes trash is litter and sometimes your load is material, but, either way, it’s littering the highway. We should research whether that is covered under another statute that we’re changing unintentionally. There are a ton of truckers in Clark County who would love to see a small fine because that would be the end of them buying those $800 tarps.
Senator Washington:
I understand your concern, and we’re not trying to preclude or change any laws concerning littering. I think you’re right; we have to make sure it doesn’t conflict with that. I’m not sure where the litter laws fall or what chapter they’re in. Maybe Research could find that out.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Why don’t we look back at the first reprint? If I understand what your wish is, it would say, in Section 3, “A person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 and not more than $100 for a minor violation.” And then keep the rest of the language there that states “The court shall, in determining the amount of the fine, consider the damage caused by the violation.”
Senator Washington:
Actually we were just going to strike that language in the last sentence.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Okay, just strike that. We have a question of how a “minor violation” is defined. I don’t know if we get into problems there or not.
Senator Washington:
Somebody defined it as being less than a major violation.
Assemblyman Collins:
Would you be willing to not let that supersede local authority if it’s posted $500 or $1,000 fine? Up and down Interstate 15, which is basically. . .
Senator Washington:
Sure. I have no problem with that.
Assemblyman Collins:
And, that it was not to supersede any other existing state law on littering?
[Senator Washington agreed.]
Assemblyman Collins:
We need to make sure that’s researched.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Remember, already local entities can be stricter if they want to be.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
If we restricted it that way, then where would this law apply?
Chairwoman Chowning:
The point is that local entities can be stricter than state law. They just can’t go under the threshold of state law. Is there a motion?
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 356, TO STRIKE LINES 16 AND 17, CHANGE THE FINE FROM $1,000 TO $100 MAXIMUM, AND TO ADD “MINOR” BEFORE THE WORD “VIOLATION” ON LINE 15.
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Collins:
This does say the fiscal note affects local government, so obviously it affects their fining ability. We should at least research this. If you want to recess or vote on this today, I think we should be willing to pull this back after some research. I didn’t see a fiscal note; it just says, “Yes.” Or did this have to go through Finance on the other side?
Chairwoman Chowning:
[Instructed Ms. Paslov Thomas to check the fiscal note.] Senate Bill 356’s local government fiscal note says: “As of April 5, 2003, the City of Las Vegas is the only local government to indicate that the bill will reduce revenues.” So the City of Las Vegas currently has an ordinance that authorizes the imposition of fines exceeding $25 under certain circumstances, and this bill would limit the fine to $25. They objected to the limit to $25, and, since we are expanding it, I guess they have no objection.
Assemblyman Collins:
I read that as the City of Las Vegas has a minimum of $100 fine. If this is reduced to $25, that’s a substantial change. That’s my reading.
Chairwoman Chowning:
All it said was that under certain circumstances they have fines that exceed $25. I don’t know if they have a minimum of $100. If they do, then that would be fine because they can be stricter than state law.
This bill, as amended, would read that a person would be punished by a fine of not less than $25 and not more than $100 for a minor violation.
THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 356 FAILED. MR. ATKINSON, MR. CARPENTER, MR. COLLINS, MR. MANENDO, MR. OCEGUERA, AND MS. OHRENSCHALL VOTED NO. (Mr. Knecht was absent for the vote.)
Chairwoman Chowning:
There are five Yes and six No votes and one absent, so the motion fails.
Senator Washington:
Thank you for your time and deliberation and your consideration of this bill.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Would the Chair be willing to take another motion that might pass?
Chairwoman Chowning:
The Chair will accept another motion.
Senator Washington:
Before you take the motion, I understand that the way the bill is currently printed it would do a disservice to some haulers who haul professionally and carry large loads. It would make it difficult for them to operate, so if the bill fails, the bill just fails.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So you are opposing the bill the way it came out of the Senate? Is that what you are saying?
Senator Washington:
Yes.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you for putting that on the record. Is there another motion?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I would like to have a discussion with the Committee first. [Inaudible discussion.] There are no motions.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Without a motion there’s no opportunity for discussion. I don’t hear any motion. We will close S.B. 356. We’ll open work session on S.B. 483.
Senate Bill 483 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions regarding identification cards, drivers’ licenses and driving privileges. (BDR 43-483)
Marji Paslov Thomas:
[Provided copy of proposed amendment, Exhibit E.] Senate Bill 483 concerns driver’s licenses, ID cards, and driving privileges. This measure would authorize the DMV to record convictions related to moving violations, assess demerit points, and when applicable, suspend future driving privileges of persons who do not hold valid Nevada driver’s licenses, including identification card holders. The existing law authorizes collection of this information by the Department only for a licensed driver. The measure requires the Department to hold a hearing when future privileges are suspended for such persons.
The bill also authorizes the Department to place a four-year expiration date on ID cards. Under existing law there is no expiration date for ID cards. The bill revises provisions related to documents required to be furnished to the Department as proof of name and age by an applicant for a driver’s license or identification card. The measure specifies the primary documents that will be accepted and authorizes the Department to identify acceptable secondary documents through regulations.
Finally, Senate Bill 483 authorizes the Department to charge applicants for hazardous materials endorsement with an additional fee for the processing of fingerprints. This measure prohibits the fee from exceeding the cost incurred by the Department for the processing of fingerprints for a background check that will comply with certain federal requirements related to homeland security.
Chairwoman Chowning:
There is no opposition on the bill. Ms. Mathiesen, would you like to tell us quickly why this bill is necessary?
Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles:
[Introduced herself.] The Section authorizing the Department to record convictions, assess demerit points, and suspend the future driving privilege of Nevada ID cardholders was based on facts from our data integrity section. We had them track, for a month, the convictions that were received by people without a driver’s license. In one month we had 225 convictions. For a nonlicensed driver, those convictions don’t go on his driving record, so if he were to come in and apply for a license, even though he may have received enough convictions to disqualify him if he had been licensed, we would issue him a driver’s license with a clean record. That’s the reason for that provision.
Regarding placing an expiration date on Nevada identification cards, this would allow the Department to keep the photographs, addresses, and physical descriptions current for ID cardholders. Currently there is no expiration date on an identification card, so when somebody moves out of state, we have no way of knowing that they’ve moved. Additionally, the Homeland Security Bill, A.B. 441, ties the expiration date of an immigration document to the expiration date of the documents issued by the Department. If that were the case, we would need an expiration date on the ID card to do that. We are asking to change the identification documents, or to revise those slightly in statute, that are currently required for proof of name and age for a driver’s license or an identification card. Since September 11, 2001, most states have tightened their issuance standard and their ID document requirements. The American Association of Motor Vehicles put out a standard list of acceptable documents they recommend that should be acceptable for name and date of birth to state agencies. We’re trying to make our requirements consistent with other states.
The last provision of the bill requiring or authorizing the Department to collect a fee for fingerprints is based on federal legislation requiring all the states to collect fingerprints and get an FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] and criminal history background check for applicants for a commercial license with hazardous material endorsements.
Chairwoman Chowning:
How much is that charge?
Dana Mathiesen:
I believe it’s $45. I’m not sure of the breakout. I think it’s $21 for the criminal history repository in Nevada and $24 for the FBI costs at the federal level.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Didn’t you say this wouldn’t take effect until October, so some of us with the Haz Mat [hazardous materials] endorsements would stake this for four years?
Dana Mathiesen:
Yes, the legislation takes effect November 3 of this year.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
So, I get to save $45 or $10 a year.
Chairwoman Chowning:
On page 17, it states that Sections 1-13 and Sections 16-19 become effective on October 1, 2003. Correct?
Dana Mathiesen:
That’s correct. That allows the Department to make the computer changes necessary to implement those.
[There was no further discussion. The Chair invited a motion.]
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 483.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I need clarification on the effective dates. In Sections 1-13, it says October 1, 2003. Sections 14 and 15, which include the Haz Mat portion, states the requirement of fingerprints would be upon passage and approval. Is that correct? Ms. Mathiesen just stated they didn’t have time to change this.
Dana Mathiesen:
The states don’t need to be in compliance with the federal legislation until November 3 of this year. However, in the meantime, the Transportation Security Agency is running background checks on existing CDL drivers. They may contact the states asking the states to collect fingerprint information for specific drivers whom they have targeted as hazardous. We may need to start collecting those immediately for drivers licensed in Nevada if we’re notified by the federal government to do so.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I think the real issue in it was the time frame that would be required for the background check and the fingerprinting. Mine will be due in September. It’s an issue. If I have to stand a background check, I’d have to start now.
Dana Mathiesen:
That’s correct. They ask that drivers submit their fingerprints for the background check a minimum of 90 days prior to their license’s expiration dates to give them time to return that information to the states before the license is due for renewal.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
And you will be able to notify all CDL holders 90 days before expiration? In fact, some of them could be expiring.
Dana Mathiesen:
Yes, we will. We are going to target those that are expiring in November when the Department needs to be in compliance with that. We’ll start with the licenses that are expiring in November by notifying them, hopefully, six months in advance.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Then anyone any earlier than that wouldn’t be notified and wouldn’t have to comply. Is that what you’re saying?
Dana Mathiesen:
Right, not until their licenses expire.
THE MOTION CARRIED TO DO PASS S.B. 483. (Mr. Knecht was absent for the vote.) [Mr. Knecht later voted “Yes.”]
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will bring up S.B. 116 to listen to an explanation.
Senate Bill 116 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to use of equipment to secure children traveling in certain motor vehicles. (BDR 43-87)
Marji Paslov Thomas:
I spoke with Legal Counsel, and they clarified the amendment that Assemblyman Carpenter proposed on making it specific to a child less than 9 years of age and weighs 80 pounds or less. If “or” is inserted, someone who is 12 years old and weighs 70 pounds would have to be in a booster seat. My understanding was that that was not the intent of the amendment. Legal Counsel suggested keeping it less than 9 years and weighing 80 pounds or less. That still gives it the intent Mr. Carpenter wanted to have that they have to meet both requirements. If children are 7 and weigh 85 pounds, they would not be required to be in a booster seat. So, the amendment, as proposed, does not require it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
If there’s an “and,” then both components have to be connected for the law to apply. If they’re under 9 years old and over 80 pounds, then it doesn’t apply. If one of the parts is missing, then the law doesn’t apply.
Marji Paslov Thomas:
The other example they gave me was, if you had a 7-year-old who weighs 125 pounds, that child, if the technical change was to “or,” would be required to be in a booster seat because he is under 9 years of age. So it’s important to keep “and” to keep the intent of your amendment. [Inaudible discussion.] As the bill is currently written, if you change the bill to “or” then, yes, they would be so required. The language would remain as written. Legal Division explained no amendments were necessary.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I would like to be shown as a “Yes” vote on S.B. 483.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Please show Mr. Knecht voting “Yes” on Senate Bill 483.
This Committee is in recess at the call of the Chair [at 3:23 p.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sharee Gebhardt
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: