MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
March 25, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 1:39 p.m., on Tuesday, March 25, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, 555 Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Michael Schneider (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6
Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, Assembly District No. 25
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ed Gobel, Lobbyist, President, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations
Linda West Myers, Lobbyist, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations, and GoWest Institute for Transportation Issues
Paul VanRueden, President, Northwest Area Residents Association
Juanita Clark, Charleston Neighborhood Preservation
John Sande III, Lobbyist, Airport Authority of Washoe County
Keith L. Lee, Lobbyist, Southwest Airlines
Steven Tackes, Lobbyist, Carson City Airport Authority
Bob Thomas, Carson City Airport Authority
R.L. “Skip” Polak, Manager, Reno/Stead Airport
Dennis Mewshaw, Airport Planning Manager, Department of Aviation, Clark County
Ron Moracco, Teacher, Clark County School District
Lisa A. Foster, Lobbyist, California State Automobile Association (dba AAA Nevada)
Erin Breen, Coordinator, Traffic Safety Coalition, Transportation Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Jeff Payne, President, Driver’s Edge
Karyn Wright, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
John Johansen, Highway Safety Representative, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Public Safety
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14
John K. O’Connor, Lobbyist, IUE-CWA 89177
Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles
Sandy Heverly, Executive Director, Stop DUI
Maggie Saunders, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program Coordinator, SAFE Community Partnership
Chad Dornsife, State Director, National Motorists Association
Paul Woodbury, Regional Director-Nevada, Ducks Unlimited
Tina Nappe, Lobbyist
Martha Barnes, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now call the meeting to order. We are going to start the hearing with Senate Bill (S.B.) 291.
SENATE BILL 291: Authorizes governmental entity that is proprietor of airport to impose certain reasonable restrictions concerning control of aircraft noise. (BDR 44-759)
Ed Gobel, Lobbyist, President, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations:
This is about general aviation airports. Development has crept up to the gates of the North Las Vegas Airport. The argument is that North Las Vegas Airport was there first, and that is correct. The problem is, when a developer got approval for homes to be built, people purchased homes with the promise there would be a cap on the number of homes in that development. The development was to be approximately one-third the size of what it is now.
This bill gives counties and municipalities the ability to restrict hours of operation to something reasonable such as 6 a.m. until 9 p.m., as well as the number of take-offs and landings allowed. Unfortunately, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) controls everything else when the wheels are off the ground. We cannot control flight patterns. The best we can do is cap the numbers of take-offs and landings, and this bill would leave the decision up to the counties. This bill gives counties the capability of doing that, which is not in the current law.
We want to increase the safety of home owners who bought their homes in good faith, knowing the airport was there, but had expectations there would not be the kind of air traffic there is today. Now there are additional commercial flights including Grand Canyon tours that are flying out of the North Las Vegas Airport. Airport traffic is increasing dramatically.
There are a number of helicopters other than those of the Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) that use this airport at night. Many home owners in that area are Vietnam veterans and listening to helicopters all night carries a special significance for those with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
This bill clearly states any restrictions imposed by the county must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must not be discriminatory. I have provided the committee with a document titled, “Not Tonight! Airport Traffic Gives Me A Headache” (Exhibit C) that I would like added to the record.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee for Mr. Gobel?
Senator Nolan:
A lot of noise-restriction issues are governed by federal regulation. As I understand this bill, it would apply to all airports. The take-offs and approaches are governed not only by safety aspects, which the airport has discretion, but also the FAA. Some of these things we do not have control over, even if we put it in statute, because it is preempted by federal law.
Mr. Gobel:
According to the Legislative Counsel Bureau, we can only control things on the ground such as hours of operation of an airport. We can do that without consulting the FAA. We can control take-offs and landings only from the aspect of stopping them from taxiing down the runway, or say they cannot land at a certain time of the day. That is the only power a county or State has without having to go through the FAA.
This applies only to general aviation airports. If this bill is unclear, we would accept any amendment you might offer to make sure it is clear that this only affects general aviation airports.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is it possible to change the flight pattern to avoid most of the densely populated residential areas?
Mr. Gobel:
Allegedly, changes have been made to the flight patterns for landing in the evenings but they are not being followed. General aviation airports are most used by private operators; they operate differently than McCarran International Airport. Even though they have established patterns, and are not supposed to come within 15 feet of a residential roof, it still happens. We need to restrict the hours of operation.
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now hear testimony from Las Vegas.
Linda West Myers, Lobbyist, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations, and GoWest Institute for Transportation Issues:
We would like to encourage the development of the Ivanpah facility in Jean. It is our understanding that some helicopter tour operators who cover the Grand Canyon will be moving their businesses to Ivanpah Valley, once that facility is available, and that would help significantly with the noise. General aviation pilots now have instrument landing systems that will allow them to land by using their instruments rather than visuals, which means they can fly all night long, and they do.
It is inappropriate and unfair to hundreds of families who live in areas near those airports. It is especially unfair to Vietnam veterans living in those neighborhoods who suffer from PTSD are so stressed right now in this time of war. With the noises of the aircraft operating at all hours of the night, it stresses them beyond belief.
Paul VanRueden, President, Northwest Area Residents Association:
Our area basically covers the ground north of Cheyenne Road and west of Decatur Boulevard. I was aware of the location of the airport when I purchased my home 16 years ago. The growth of the airport, most recently the addition of the second parallel runway that creates a flight path directly over our homes, is one of the biggest factors affecting most home owners. We see more planes flying over our area, which affects all of our home owners. That is something they never expected or bargained for when they bought their homes.
We are in support of this bill and anything else that would serve to aid in diminishing the impact of aircraft noise flying overhead.
Juanita Clark, Charleston Neighborhood Preservation:
There are 13,800 homes in our neighborhood. Preservation of a neighborhood means protecting residents from inordinate noise. I concur with the previous testimony.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you all in Las Vegas for coming to testify. Is there anyone who wishes to testify in opposition of this bill?
John Sande III, Lobbyist, Airport Authority of Washoe County:
Northern Nevada experiences the same problems you are hearing about from southern Nevada concerning general aviation airport noise. Northern Nevada complies with federal law; we believe federal law preempts in this area. Passing such a bill would set up a false hope in residents of the State that somehow they could implement these restrictions and it would have absolutely no impact on federal law. Quite the contrary is true. A study per the Federal Aviation Regulation, part 150, Noise Compatibility Study, was done in Washoe County and Clark County, as well. It allows you to seek federal funds to acquire real property to purchase land, homes, and other programs that do not restrict aircraft operations.
Under federal law there are prohibitions on discriminating against airport traffic. If you restrict airport operations, you lose federal funds. We understand the noise concerns. We believe the appropriate way to address this issue is to do a noise study. We have done several things in northern Nevada under the auspices of the FAA. We have looked at changing flight paths. To do that, you have to make sure, as far as the FAA is concerned, the new flight path does not create a hazard under federal law as far as how operations are conducted. Again, it must be done in compliance with federal law. Passing such a bill would create expectations that State or local governments could not carry out.
Chairman Shaffer:
I believe you are familiar with the North Las Vegas Airport. There is a tremendous amount of development that took place after the airport was there. Apparently, in the approving stages of the plans, that was not taken into consideration. Is there any liability on behalf of the county for allowing this development to take place?
Mr. Sande:
That is a question I would not want to address without knowing all the facts. I assume this airport was constructed in compliance with federal law. Initially, Washoe County had a very small airport. It has become very large. By doing noise studies, Washoe County was able to obtain federal funds and acquire land negatively impacted by the airport. They also soundproofed some residences. We have been doing this for the last 10 to 15 years in Washoe County, and it seems to be working. Obviously, noise is a concern when you have the growth we have in both Clark and Washoe Counties. You are always going to have that conflict.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Nolan:
Is there some type of real estate disclosure given when purchasing property that gives the footprint of a flight pattern? I know McCarran International Airport has established a certain decibel (dB) rating that is evaluated on a regular basis to see if noise levels have changed. If the rating was above the 60 or 65 dB range, they were not permitting residential housing in that area. McCarran International Airport is a lot different than regional airports where large jets are not landing or taking off, but do you know if that type of disclosure is given regarding regional airports?
Mr. Sande:
I understand it is customary when you acquire property to have an aviation easement on the property so it is known if you are near an airport. We have done things in Washoe County to improve housing such as soundproofing and in some cases acquiring property. If you have ever taken off or landed from the south, towards the north, you will notice there is a lot of land there. Unless it is commercial land that has been acquired over the years, it is basically open space. We do have noise restrictions as far as the type of aircraft that can land during certain periods of time. Airport noise is much quieter than 10 years ago.
Senator Care:
No one has talked about the distinction between noise as an irritant and noise as a health hazard. Do you know of any airports that have done this, and whether the test is a dB level or proximity? Several years ago the FAA had a program for people who had commercial jets. Owners of the jets were required to install nacelles, mechanisms put on jets to help lessen noise. Certain airports would not allow airplanes to land unless these nacelles had been installed. Is there a different dB level for aircraft other than jets?
Mr. Sande:
I have been told a noise level of up to 65 dBs is deemed safe. I can get more information on whether a dB level above that is harmful to the human ear. The noise restriction for Washoe County is that noisier jets are not allowed at certain times of the day. Those jets are going to be totally phased out of use.
Keith L. Lee, Lobbyist, Southwest Airlines:
We have some concerns with this type of legislation. Recently, a federally funded tower was built at the North Las Vegas Airport. There are two ways to get federal dollars to build structures in airports. One is called the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which is money taken out of the trust fund created from taxes and fees paid by the airlines. The other is a discretionary grant from the FAA. If it is a discretionary grant, there are terms and conditions associated with the use of the facility. I assume this tower is to remain open 24 hours a day. If that is the case, any restriction of traffic could be a violation of the terms and conditions of the grant and cause it to forfeit. That is a precautionary note to you.
More importantly, these airports, particularly the North Las Vegas Airport, are divert emergency airports. It must be understood if restrictions were placed, those restrictions would not apply to any emergency that would have to be accommodated by those airports. I do not know the length of the runways to know if a jet aircraft the size of a Boeing 737 or MD80 could land safely. Other certificated aircraft, propeller planes, and smaller jets may be diverted to a general aviation airport on an emergency basis. That is another cautionary note.
The biggest concern we have is this bill creates expectations that cannot be fulfilled. In this case, the county commission in Clark County acts as the airport authority. If given this authority, I think it would put them in a situation of dealing with these issues and imposing restrictions that may or may not be applicable in federal regulation.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you. Are there any questions at this time from the committee?
Senator Care:
Mr. Lee, this bill is saying “a governmental entity that is the proprietor of an airport may... impose restrictions.” That sounds discretionary. If we enact this bill there is no guarantee an airport would do this. It also seems under federal regulations the operator of an airport can already do this. Can North Las Vegas Airport currently dictate certain airplanes cannot land there simply because of noise level, even if the runway is long enough and the aircraft can be accommodated in all other aspects?
Mr. Lee:
Senator Care, I am not sure of the answer. I do not believe they can. It would depend upon the type of funding received for the new tower and what restrictions, if any are associated with that grant.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify on S.B. 291?
Steven Tackes, Lobbyist, Carson City Airport Authority:
I would like to answer some questions of how the AIP works. The Carson City Airport gets a great deal of federal funding. That federal funding is conditioned upon keeping the airport open and accessible to aircraft. The question was asked if hours of flight traffic could be restricted. That issue is being debated before the FAA at this time. The Santa Monica Airport was told they could not restrict hours so they took a different approach. They penalize pilots who fly in during certain hours. There is a tug‑of‑war going on between the FAA and Santa Monica over this issue. Substantial federal funds are at stake when you have a tug‑of‑war with the FAA. At the Carson City Airport, 94 percent of the money we use for improvements comes from the federal government. We make assurances to the federal government that we will treat the area around the airport in a manner consistent with airport operations. That includes zoning and noise issues. We have already looked at that.
I am not familiar with the North Las Vegas Airport operation but when they put in the parallel runway, one thing they were probably required to do, as is any other airport, is an environmental assessment. We are not just talking about butterflies and turtles; we are talking about its effect on people. The environmental assessment process takes into account the effect of the additional airport facilities in the surrounding area. I expect they went through that process already. I understand people are not happy to hear airplanes at odd hours, but that is something that happens when you live near an airport. I am in agreement with the comments made by Mr. Sande and Mr. Lee that the bill appears to create a false sense of security or false impression that it will do something about airport noise. The correct and proper process is through the FAA.
Bob Thomas, Carson City Airport Authority:
Section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (c) says, “Must not be discriminatory.” Are we going to discriminate against helicopters or airlines? If there is a scheduled airline service, do we discriminate against them, or do we let them fly anytime day or night, and only discriminate against private pilots? What is a permissible noise level? Only the FAA can determine that. Currently, we do not need a bill to run noise tests on our airport to get the FAA to pay for those tests. Yes, we do have a noise problem at our airport; it is not as bad as at the North Las Vegas Airport: The Carson City Airport created specific take-off and departure patterns on both runways at each end. Air traffic is required to follow certain procedures to minimize the effect of noise on the population below. The procedures are not always followed. We cannot control air traffic in air; that is an FAA prerogative. We can control air traffic on the ground by taking away certain privileges of airplane owners at the airport if they do not obey procedures. There are ways of handling these things without going into legislation. I personally think it is a poorly thought out bill, and the Carson City Airport Authority is in opposition to this bill.
Mr. Gobel:
A noise study was done in 1987 when there was no development around the airport. Now residential development is within a few 100 yards from the fence of the airport.
This bill only allows a county, if it so chooses, to impose restrictions that are guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Nevada and the Constitution of the United States, as well. The FAA funding has been allowed for many airports around the country that have restricted hours of operation because of residential development in the vicinity. I will try to get you information within the next week regarding that. I want to say I am not in favor of the federal government dictating everything in our lives.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify for or against this bill?
R. L. “Skip” Polak, Manager, Reno/Stead Airport:
I did not come to testify. I just want to offer a correction to some earlier testimony. If a pilot is committing what we consider to be errors in judgment and endangering people, that pilot can be arrested. Just this morning, a pilot of an ultralight vehicle, which is an airplane that does not need an airport to take off, had taken off from some place other than our airport. The authorities assumed he came from our airport. The authorities were calling to say this guy was in the air. Then someone reported that he had crashed. As it turned out he was really making low passes and landing in the dry lake bed. He eventually landed his airplane. The fire marshal was called out because he had been acting erratically and flying relatively low. I had my staff call the FAA and report the incident. We report everything to the FAA because we are partners. The FAA had the sheriff go to the lake bed. Their intent was to have that gentleman arrested and his plane impounded. My point is if someone is doing something erratic, or flying outside established patterns, the law can intervene.
Chairman Shaffer:
Does the committee have any comments or questions at this time?
Senator Nolan:
I know the FAA has a 65 dB level for noise and anything above that they generally do not permit near residential construction, especially if it is going to be a consistent thing. At general airports, do they do any type of noise monitoring?
Mr. Polak:
I am not an expert. I am told the 65 dB level is a day-night average. There are general aviation airports that monitor noise. Most commercial airports in large communities monitor noise. Commercial airports have flight tracking that monitors the dB level near those areas. There is what we call a navigation easement associated with construction. In our particular case, we do not have many noise problems.
Senator Nolan:
I just want to know if general aviation airports monitor noise, as do the bigger airports.
Mr. Polak:
The Reno/Stead Airport does not monitor their noise; that is the airport with which I am most familiar.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone in Las Vegas still wishing to testify on S.B. 291?
Dennis Mewshaw, Airport Planning Manager, Department of Aviation, Clark County:
We are owners and operators of the North Las Vegas Airport, McCarran International Airport, and other airports in Clark County. I echo the comments made earlier that the only benefit of this legislation will give false hope to the citizens of the community. The FAA establishes procedures by which the county could implement restrictions on flight activities at any airport. The secret behind that entire process is it must be shown to be nondiscriminatory and there is a definable community benefit to any restrictions that would be imposed.
In response to a question Senator Nolan asked, yes, we do regular monitoring of aircraft noise in the area surrounding the North Las Vegas Airport. We continue to find the noise levels are no greater than noise levels projected through our modeling in the various environmental documents prepared for development of that airport over the last couple of decades.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there are some 700 people having problems with the noise, do you have any intent to try to help them in any way?
Mr. Mewshaw:
Members of my staff and the management at North Las Vegas Airport have met with the neighborhood community on several occasions. We have explained to them the limits of what we, the county, can do unilaterally. We are more than willing to continue to work with the neighborhood association.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee at this time?
Senator Nolan:
What is the projected growth for the North Las Vegas Airport? Are you looking to have the capacity to expand your current volume perhaps even adding runways?
Mr. Mewshaw:
The North Las Vegas Airport has three runways. The newest of which opened in November 2001 and was referred to in earlier testimony. That is the last runway we will be able to build at the North Las Vegas Airport without a huge land acquisition effort. The longest runway we have is 5000 feet, which means the North Las Vegas Airport will always be an airport that serves smaller general aviation, single and twin engine, and piston-prop aircraft. We have a few turbine engine planes that are small jet engine aircraft that operate there.
There is no intent to add additional runway capacity at this time. Today we have approximately 200,000 annual flight operations. Our long-term projections are 240,000 flight operations per year at that airport. That is not a lot of growth. To accommodate the future growth in general aviation activity for this valley, we are actively engaged in the redevelopment of the Henderson Executive Airport. Last week we opened a new 6500-foot runway at the Henderson Executive Airport making it an airport that will be more attractive to the heavier general aviation aircraft, the turbo props and turbine engine aircraft.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there is no further testimony we will close the hearing on S.B. 291 and open the hearing on S.B. 256.
SENATE BILL 256: Makes various changes concerning drivers’ licenses issued to persons under 18 years of age. (BDR 43-714)
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8:
This is a public safety issue. Senate Bill 256 serves to strengthen Nevada teen drivers’ licensing laws to meet certain national standards and addresses several concerns of constituents and legislators. The provisions add key components to Nevada’s existing teen-licensing requirements.
Section 2 permits the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue unique drivers’ licenses for 16- and 17-year-olds. Section 2, line 16, stipulates 50 hours of driving experience that is already required, to include 10 hours of driving at night. Teens do not get enough nighttime driving practice. We have more crashes in dark hours due to the lack in experience of driving at night. There is a definite difference between daylight and nighttime driving.
Section 2, lines 24, 36, and 37, require youths to submit a form to DMV attesting he or she has not been found to be responsible for a motor vehicle accident, a moving vehicle accident, a moving traffic violation, or a crime involving alcohol or controlled substance during the last 6 months prior to the application for that license. The application must also attest an instructional learner’s permit has been held for not less than 6 months. Statistics show that holding a permit for 6 months decreases the number of crashes. A parent, guardian, or driving instructor must sign the form if the youth is emancipated.
Section 3 repeals current tiered passenger requirements and prohibits newly licensed drivers who are 16 or 17 years of age from transporting passengers under the age of 18. The requirement is for the first 6 months after the date the license was obtained. Those first 6 months are crucial. That is when accidents will most likely happen. When a minor is driving a car and other kids are with them, the times are shown to have the highest rate of incidents.
This measure provides an exemption for immediate family members. It explains that a violation of the passenger restriction is a secondary offense rather than a primary offense. That means another violation must be present before a citation can be written for that offense. It also requires if a license is restricted or suspended as a result of a violation of the graduated driver licensing (GDL) law, the restriction or suspension will remain in effect even if the person becomes 18-years-old prior to the end of the terms of restriction or suspension.
Section 3, subsections 2 and 3, and section 10, provide that if a parent or legal guardian knowingly and willfully allows the youth to operate a motor vehicle in violation of the provisions of this measure, the parent or legal guardian is liable for all fines and penalties imposed against the person. If the parent or legal guardian is unable to pay the penalty due to financial hardships, the court may require the parent or guardian to perform community services. This is a key element.
I was asked to go to a high school where the highway patrol and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) were putting on a program concerning deaths of students leaving school campuses. Last year we lost several Las Vegas youths due to people not following the law. With the auditorium full of high school students, an officer asked how many of them had a driving permit. A very small number raised their hands. Then he said, “We are not going to do anything, but I want you to be truthful about the next question. How many of you drive without a permit or a license?” Over 90 percent of the students raised their hands. I asked the police officers if they were finding the same thing at other schools they had visited, and the answer was yes.
Senator Cegavske:
This bill sets limits on the number of hours in a driver education class that can be substituted for training in a motor vehicle. We also have exemptions set up for rural areas in section 2, lines 39 and 40. Any new provisions in S.B. 256 will not be applicable to anyone who has been issued a driver’s license or instruction permit prior to October 1, 2003.
Motor vehicle crashes are a major cause of deaths for Nevada’s teens. Over half of the teenage passengers killed in crashes were riding in cars driven by other teens. The Legislature recognized this unfortunate trend and made an effort to address the issue and many others to ensure that teen drivers obtain appropriate education and driving experience. However, input provided by educators, law enforcement, and citizens has demonstrated there is a need for even more improvement. This measure puts traditional concepts of GDL in place, which includes instruction-permit holding periods, nighttime driving experience, and passenger restrictions for young and newly licensed drivers. It also removes a tiered system of passenger restrictions and the permit holding period, which is confusing to many teens and parents.
The State can do something to reduce the deaths of our teenagers. It has been proven in other states. I have some documents prepared for your review: “Bullet Points Outlining S.B. 256” (Exhibit D); “Saving Nevada’s Teen Drivers” (Exhibit E); “U.S. Licensing Systems for Young Drivers” (Exhibit F); a letter from David Manning, Ph.D. (Exhibit G); and a letter from Laurel Stadler (Exhibit H).
Ron Moracco, Teacher, Clark County School District:
Graduated driver licensing is a small step in making a difference in our State. A 30-hour class alone is not sufficient; combining it with the rest of the GDL process makes the difference. With this bill we can take major steps forward in the nation as being a leader in the GDL program. I would like to thank Senator Cegavske for supporting this bill.
Lisa A. Foster, Lobbyist, California State Automobile Association (dba AAA Nevada):
We support this bill. A true GDL law involves extensive practice with an experienced driver in the permit phase and gives experience in proven low-risk conditions. This is daytime driving only without distractions of peers. Nevada needs a clear GDL law. Three components of GDL include mandatory learning permits, nighttime driving restrictions, and passenger restrictions.
The most important component is passenger restriction. In Las Vegas we have many crashes take place with teens driving other teens. A national personal transportation survey showed with 16- and 17-year-old drivers the crash rate increased with each passenger. The crash rate doubles with 3 passengers. That sounds impressive, but more impressive is when you look at 30- to 59-year-old drivers. With that age group, if they have 1 to 3 passengers, it seems to decrease the risk of a crash. Some people may feel teens are picked on because we do not want other teens in the car when they are learning to drive, but there are clear numbers showing it really does increase the risk of a crash.
Currently, 47 states have a GDL program. Even Nevada law has a unique thing we consider GDL, because although it is an odd-phased program, it still provides for some phasing into the full driving experience.
All evaluations of GDL that have ever been done show that it decreases the crash rate from 4 percent to over 60 percent. California showed a decrease of 23 percent for at-fault crashes of 16-year-old drivers, and a 40 percent decrease in teen passenger deaths and injuries. North Carolina had a 57 percent decrease in the 16-year-old driver fatal crash rate. Ohio was even higher with a 69 percent decrease in the 16- to 17-year-old fatal crash rate.
In Connecticut and Florida surveys were done of parents before the law was implemented and 3 years after implementation. Those surveys showed most parents supported all three components of GDL prior to the law going into place. Even more supported it 3 years after it was in place. The vast majority supported GDL and felt it saved lives and protected their children.
What we have in Nevada right now is confusing to kids and parents. We at California State Automobile Association (dba AAA Nevada) are hoping this bill would be passed to allow for 6 months for a mandatory permit and a 6-month passenger restriction, as well as boosting the driver age back up to 16 years of age.
Erin Breen, Coordinator, Traffic Safety Coalition, Transportation Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
We concur with AAA Nevada. We support Senator Cegavske and S.B. 256. In 2001 there were 34 fatal crashes involving 16- and 17-year-olds. In 12 of those crashes, 16- or 17-year-olds were the drivers. Twenty-two of those crashes had 16- or 17-year-olds as passengers. In addition, in 2001, there were another 10 crashes that produced 14 more fatalities where the at-fault driver was 16‑ or 17‑year‑olds, but those killed were not in that age group. This data comes from the Office of Traffic Safety’s fatal analysis reporting system.
We have only 80 percent of 2002 data compiled, but I want to share with you for a specific reason. The reason I want to share it with you is because, sadly, the numbers are greater in 2002 with only 80 percent of the data completed. This problem continues to escalate. With 80 percent of the data for 2002, there were 37 fatal crashes involving 16- and 17-year-olds. Of those crashes, 16 were drivers only 16 or 17 years old, 25 crashes involved 16‑ or 17‑year‑olds as passengers. There were an additional 16 fatal crashes producing 18 fatalities where the at-fault driver was 16- or 17-year-olds, but were not the people killed. Unfortunately, the trend continues. In the City of Las Vegas, this month alone, we have lost four teens ages 16 and 17 due to fatal traffic crashes.
Highway fatality numbers can be linked to the drop in the number of teens wearing seatbelts. Your best defense in any crash situation is to be wearing your seatbelt. In 2001, close to 50 percent of the teenagers involved in fatalities were unbelted in the vehicles. In 2002 that statistic dropped; less than 30 percent of those killed in crashes were unbelted. Teens notoriously have the lowest seatbelt usage rate. That combined with inexperience and risk taking adds up to a disastrous equation.
We are not asking you to solve the problem for us but to be part of the solution. We need the support of the Nevada Legislature and I am asking you to support a full GDL program. We feel it is a critical part of our efforts to save lives. We need you to send a message to parents that they have to be more involved and less complacent about their children’s futures.
Jeff Payne, President, Driver’s Edge:
I am here to support this program. This measure is a critical first step in helping to save the lives of young drivers. None of us, regardless of age, are taught how to drive. We are simply taught how to pass a test. Just learning the basic fundamentals of how to operate a vehicle is not going to prepare a young driver for all the hazards faced in everyday driving.
This bill is going to give young drivers time to acclimate themselves. It will keep them off the streets during times where collisions are most prone to occur. It will give them time to build their skills. It is going to keep away distractions of having other teens in the vehicles. Statistics show that it does make a big difference. It will hopefully help eliminate some of that video game mentality of a lot of young drivers. This is definitely a beginning.
Senator Cegavske:
I wanted to mention Ashley Beersack’s name. Ashley is one of the student survivors of a 2002 car crash near one of the high schools. She is a constituent of Senator Care and Senator Titus. She was unable to be with us today. In that 2002 crash she suffered not only a leg amputation but many of her bones were crushed. She is in constant severe pain. She is in the hospital again. It is because of Ashley’s insistence and at her request that this bill was introduced. I just wanted to let everybody know Ashley is in our prayers. I know she is probably listening or someone will tell her about this meeting. I just wanted to let her know we are taking care of this. Thank you.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
Ms. Foster, in section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (d), it says, “He has not been found to be responsible for a motor vehicle accident ...” I am assuming what we are looking for here is language that would include, “contributory negligence,” someone who is 30 percent at fault, not just at fault.
Ms. Foster:
This bill is written awkwardly. The intention is, if you were the at-fault driver, then you go back in stages. If you have gotten through the permit phase and you are into that first stage of driving with restrictions, you would need to go back. Does that answer your question?
Senator Care:
I think the intent is if you are partially at fault. The next paragraph says, “He has not been convicted …” as opposed to cited. It is not hard to imagine a young person getting a citation a week before he goes to get a license. There is no conviction on record yet, but maybe down the road it might lead to a conviction. I would not have a problem using the word cited rather than convicted. We are talking about a license, not necessarily a constitutional right.
Section 10, subsection 2 reads, “If the parent or legal guardian of a person under the age of 18 years knowingly and willfully allows the person to operate a motor vehicle ...” If the child is not listed as one of the insured operators of that vehicle, what happens if there is an accident?
Ms. Foster:
The person on the policy needs to give clear, obvious permission to someone else to drive the vehicle. If the youth takes the vehicle from the parent without permission, that would be in violation of what the policy states. If they do not have permission the policy would not cover any damages incurred. It depends on the insurance company.
Senator Care:
How is this bill different from what we did last session?
Senator Cegavske:
The difference is the tiering. This would require 6 months with a permit, and 6 months with passenger restriction. Before drivers between the ages of 15 and 16 were only required to have a permit for 3 months. Ages 16 and 17 had 2 months, and ages 17 and 18 had only 1 month.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any more questions from the committee?
Senator Hardy:
In the situation you referred to earlier regarding Ashley, as I recall, the driver did not have a driver’s license and was driving a car, apparently with the permission of her father. I understand the father was potentially guilty of a misdemeanor. Is that accurate? I did not see where your bill addresses that type of an issue.
Senator Cegavske:
Section 3, subsection 3 is hopefully going to help us with that. I talked with the district attorney’s office in regard to whether or not a guardian would be held responsible. I was told there was not enough meat in the statute to help us to do something along those lines.
Senator Hardy:
As I read it, section 3 deals simply with the issue of whether or not they have another passenger in the vehicle.
Senator Cegavske:
This was the section that we requested. If a guardian or parent knowingly gave an opportunity for a young person to drive a vehicle without being properly licensed or insured, that person would be held accountable. That was the premise behind this section.
Senator Hardy:
It just simply says if they are driving with a passenger, they are in violation of this law.
Senator Cegavske:
It says you are willfully allowing the person to operate a motor vehicle. That is what we were trying to do.
Senator Hardy:
I just want to make sure this is tough enough. You are making the parent liable, which is okay. Then it says if the parent of legal guardian is unable to pay the fine the parent or legal guardian may perform community service. Why not the youth?
Senator Cegavske:
This portion refers to parent or legal guardian responsibility if they are allowing the youth to drive. It says to the parent, “You are responsible and here are the consequences.” If they cannot pay the fine, at least the judge can have them perform some community service.
Senator Hardy:
It would be my intent to be as tough as we possibly can on parents that are allowing that to occur. My intent, legislatively, is for the judge to impose as much of this on the youth as they can. Another question I have is why are we prohibiting a police officer from stopping a vehicle under the suspicion of violating this act? Is there a compelling reason why we included section 4?
Senator Cegavske:
It is a secondary offense. We treat it much like the seatbelt law, which is also a secondary offense. People felt they were being harassed if they were being stopped solely to determine if they were wearing a seatbelt. We wanted to get away from that. We left it as a secondary offense in part to help get this bill passed.
Senator Hardy:
I can appreciate that answer. A secondary offense makes a lot of sense if you are running the risk of hurting yourself, but in this situation we are talking about the lives of other people. I do not want to damage or jeopardize your bill, but I would certainly be supportive of allowing this violation to be a primary offense.
I have one last question. I understand we have exempted persons in counties under 50,000 in population from taking this driver education course. The bill says they are not required to complete this course. Is there a reason why we did not say if a course is not available they are not required to complete the course?
Senator Cegavske:
The only area we found there was a problem with a program was in the rural areas; so we did it by population. If there is a hardship, we also have the legislation that has been in there that states, “... if you are 14 years of age and it is a hardship …” That has been in law for a long time. We have always kept that language in there. The rural areas do have a harder time getting access to these types of programs.
Senator Hardy:
I am sympathetic to that. I just think if they have the courses available they ought to be required to take them and be encouraged to do them in the schools.
Senator Cegavske:
The accidents are not less in the rural areas. In fact, in some statistics the number of accidents is greater. It is becoming a little better. We do still have some concerns and we do want to emphasize the importance to the rural areas.
Senator Hardy:
With regard to section 10, curfew, what is the curfew?
Senator Cegavske:
The curfew in all the counties is similar but different. That is why we did not put in a curfew. In Clark County it is 10 p.m. on weeknights and 12 midnight on Friday and Saturday nights.
Chairman Shaffer:
Senator Hardy, we will address this will legal counsel and get some explanations for you.
Senator Hardy:
Thank you Chairman Shaffer. If in fact we are giving a slap on the wrist to a parent who violated this, who apparently did not care, I am really troubled by that.
Senator Cegavske:
To answer one of Senator Care’s questions, I was told that in Ashley’s accident the insurance company did not feel they had to cover that crash because the driver was not insured and she violated the law; because she did not have a permit or driver’s license, the insurance company felt it did not have to take care of the insurance claims. That was the beginning. I do not know if it truly ended up that way or not.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify on S.B. 256?
Karyn Wright, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
The provisions in this bill that allow us to teach the classroom component of drivers’ education is greatly appreciated and greatly needed. We are in support.
John Johansen, Highway Safety Representative, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Public Safety:
I have a handout for the committee to review titled, “Data and Information Relative to Graduated Driver Licensing” (Exhibit I). Our numbers are slightly different from Ms. Foster’s but they are the latest reports we have that we are using for the Office of Traffic Safety. We show 38 states have a GDL law. This information was obtained from the Journal of Safety Research in our local Fatal Accident Reporting System data.
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14:
We practice this program in my family. It is just good common sense.
John K. O’Connor, Lobbyist, IUE-CWA 89177:
We support this piece of legislation.
Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles:
I think the problems associated with young drivers have been summed up very thoroughly. This bill strengthens Nevada’s provisional licensing requirements and makes the requirements more consistent for all new drivers. It also simplifies it for the DMV. We support this bill.
I would like to clarify a couple of comments made earlier: Senator Care, you indicated that a citation may be used instead of a conviction if the department is basing the licensing delay on a citation. We do not receive citations. We do not get citations from the courts until they turn into convictions.
Senator Hardy, in regard to your concerns with rural areas, right now the law reads if a minor attends school in a rural area and the school offers drivers’ education, the minor is required to take that course regardless of population. The only time the course in not required is if the school does not offer it.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there any more testimony to be given from Las Vegas on this bill?
Sandy Heverly, Executive Director, Stop DUI:
We believe an entry-level, driver-licensing program will provide young drivers the opportunity to learn the complex and necessary skills required to operate a motor vehicle in a safe and responsible manner. Consider 36 percent of all deaths of people ages 15 to 19 are from motor vehicle crashes. Understand that 16-year-old drivers have crash rates 3 times more than 17-year‑olds, 5 times greater than 18-year-olds, and 2 times greater than 85-year-old drivers. The direction we must take as responsible adults in this matter is clearly a GDL law. Evaluations from other states and countries that have implemented a GDL program have shown positive results and a reduction of crash rates in this age group. The life-saving potential of S.B. 256 is obvious. Graduated driver licensing is a responsible, reasonable, and sensible approach to creating a safer environment for all of us who share the roadways. We hope you will support S.B. 256.
Maggie Saunders, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program Coordinator, SAFE Community Partnership:
I just want to go on record enthusiastically showing support for S.B. 256.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to this bill?
Chad Dornsife, State Director, National Motorists Association:
By passing this bill you are creating a new layer of government. Going back to a statement made earlier of 90 percent of students at a particular high school admitting to driving without a learner’s permit or license, those students will become a new criminal class with the passage of this bill.
There will be significant administrative costs for drivers under the age of 18 when you get involved with courts, attorneys, driving schools, and all other layers of government that would be involved.
Let us look at statistics. Florida’s reduction in 16-year-old driver-related accidents was directly related to a reduction in the number of people who were licensed to drive at 16. You will show a reduction if you do not allow them to drive. The reduction is actually a reduction in the number of drivers per mile driven.
If you really want to save lives, then we need to encourage more kids under the age of 16 to drive with their parents for a longer period of time. We need to encourage parents to let their young drivers drive with them thereby having more experience behind the wheel. It is not about age. It concerns time behind the wheel.
I have a comment regarding nighttime driving. It takes 10 times more light for someone the age of 60 to perform the same functions as a 20-year-old. These 16- and 17-year-olds see 12 to 13 times better than I do at night. Their reflexes and motor skills are faster. Statistically, when you look at miles driven, fatality rates are significantly higher for those over age 65 than those under the age of 20.
I object to turning our teenagers into a new criminal class. What we need to do is spend more time as parents teaching them to drive. This law will do nothing but add a layer of government that we do not need. It will be costly to the State and families, and will provide no safety benefit.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any comments or questions from the committee?
Senator Nolan:
I respect your opposition to this bill. As a traffic safety expert how many fatal accidents involving teenagers have you dealt with or investigated?
Mr. Dornsife:
I have probably investigated hundreds of accidents. I go to the scene of an accident and look at the engineering for the intersection. I go out and look at what contributing causes may have been there, such as signal timing and possible time-of-day issues. I have been doing this for years.
Senator Nolan:
I do not want to be argumentative; I just want to make a case with you. The information brought before us by the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety is based on their number of body counts. They take the number of dead kids and their ages and put them into statistics. What we have before us is a compilation of those statistics. I have been listening to this GDL issue for 8 years. We have looked at cases in different states. In the years we have not implemented a solid GDL bill other states have implemented them. Those other states have seen a reduction in fatalities. In a number of different states that have implemented this, their mortality rates have dropped, while our rates continue to rise. Part of it is because of our population increase. We are not trying to create a new class of criminals; that is not the intent. It is to try to keep kids out of body bags.
I can tell you that every session we deal with this same issue. We look at statistics of the prior year, there are usually another dozen or so kids killed in this State. I also have investigated and responded to a number of these fatalities. Maybe 2, 3, or 4 of them would still be alive if they had a little more experience behind the wheel. Not everyone’s parents will spend the needed time with their youths letting them drive unless they are so required.
Mr. Dornsife:
Let me say one thing so you can understand from where we are coming. If you came to me with a specific number of accidents that were “caused,” I stress the word “caused,” by a 16- or 17-year-old driver, we could go along with that and live or die by those numbers. The data presented here is never “caused,” it is “related.” That means the accident could have involved a parent driving and the 16- or 17-year-old was in the back seat of a rollover accident and the youth was killed; it is referred to as “related.” We do not like the word “related.”
Senator Nolan:
I understand that. My question to you as a transportation safety expert; you said one thing that will give kids more of an opportunity to become better drivers is more time behind the wheel. You would have to agree that more “supervised” time behind the wheel would even be better. That is where this bill is going; it requires more supervised time behind the wheel, without additional distractions. Despite the fact young drivers have lightning speed reflexes, they are also still kids who are not yet acclimated to the traffic-driving climate.
Mr. Dornsife:
This bill includes a whole new layer of government. Why do you not double the time required behind the wheel before someone gets a license at the age of 16? The parent would be required to keep a log of when and where they were driving with the youth. I am not going to argue for 1 minute that behind‑the‑wheel time does not save lives. Their motor skills and reflexes get developed; their ability to judge distances increases. They would have someone there to guide them in their driving efforts. I would agree with that.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any more comments or questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
Do you believe this bill will save lives, increase fatalities, or have no effect one way or the other?
Mr. Dornsife:
I think it will have no effect. The only effect I think would be more kids in court for driving without a license, and more parents under arrest.
Senator Care:
I just want to make an observation. You said we would be creating another class of criminals. The courts in Nevada have held consistently that revocation of a driver’s licenses is a civil proceeding and not a criminal proceeding. Now, if you do not have a driver’s license, no matter what age you are, that is a criminal matter. I am talking about the simple revocation of a driver’s license, which is purely a civil matter not a criminal one. So I have to disagree with you when you say we are creating a class of criminals. I do not see it that way.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there is no other testimony, we will close the hearing on S.B. 256 and open the hearing on S.B. 99.
SENATE BILL 99: Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of aviation. (BDR 43-923)
Senate Bill 26 of the 71st Session created a Fund for Aviation. As you know there is no money in that fund for aviation. Nevada was the last state or commonwealth in the nation to have an aviation trust fund. Other states and commonwealths have a trust fund in which they keep a certain amount of money for airports that need matching grants. There is a program called the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Airports within NPIAS are allowed to ask the federal government for grants to do certain things: repair runways, put in lights, fencing, security devices, and those types of things. The federal government pays 93.75 percent; the local matching fund is 6.25 percent. Other states with aviation trust funds help the counties, cities, and local entities that own airports or have airports in their jurisdictions find matching funds of 6.25 percent. That is the intention of the aviation trust fund here in Nevada.
We are asking for an aviation license plate. The pilot who owned an airplane would put something like Cessna, Piper, Eclipse, or perhaps put his “N” number, which is the airplane number that is painted on the side of each certified airplane. This license plate puts us one step closer in the direction of a trust fund. There are approximately 7700 pilots registered in this State and there are 131 airports. There are only three commercial airports in Elko, Washoe County, and Clark County.
We would like to start a trust fund to help other airports within this State to bring them up to some level where they can provide full service to the aviation community.
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6:
I have been approached by Assemblywoman Gibbons to put an amendment on this bill. I wonder if you would consider doing an omnibus license plate bill that would consolidate all bills you approve concerning license plates. I know I am being presumptuous that you are going to approve any. There is an existing anatomical gift, a donor license plate. It is not used as a fund-raising license plate. It is used to make people aware that organs are available or they can donate organs. We are asking for the ability to make it a fund-raising license plate. I would offer this as a proposed amendment (Exhibit J). It could go into S.B. 99, if you think this bill would be processed, or any of the other license plate bills.
Chairman Shaffer:
What we will do, Senator Rawson, is get some advice from legal counsel on how we can go about doing this without breaking the rules. We will do the best we can to make it happen for you.
Senator Rawson:
Thank you. As far as aviation, there are a lot of pilots and airplane owners in Nevada. This could be very important for the smaller airports that have no other sources.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there is no other testimony, we will close the hearing on S.B. 99 and open the hearing on S.B. 202.
SENATE BILL 202: Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of conservation of wetlands. (BDR 43-1040)
Paul Woodbury, Regional Director-Nevada, Ducks Unlimited:
I have a packet of information for committee review (Exhibit K). I just want to give you some background on the organization of Ducks Unlimited (DU). Ducks Unlimited is an international North American wetlands conservation organization. Ducks Unlimited, Incorporated is the United States version of that. This organization was created in 1937. We raise funds for the process of restoring, conserving, and managing the wetlands habitat in North America for water birds and waterfowl. Ducks Unlimited would greatly benefit from the proceeds of a special license plate. We have already obtained the required 1000 signatures for this license plate.
One of the goals of DU is to select and develop projects that will enhance wetland habitats and enhance the State. We are trying to build homes and rest areas for ducks and all water birds that pass through our State.
Our DU organization has often been thought to be a group of hunters who own duck clubs and raise ducks to harvest. Actually we are a conservation organization. The activities we do to restore wetlands habitat in Nevada affects 600 other species other than just ducks.
The proceeds made available by the license plate would primarily be used in conservation areas to augment what we call marsh monies; marsh means matching. This is a general fund; the money is earmarked for the use of aiding in the restoration of the State’s habitat. The issuance of a license plate might seem miniscule to some entities, but to DU it would affect what we could do for our wetlands landscape over the years.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Hardy:
I have always believed our sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts are our greatest conservationists. I just want to thank you for all you do.
Mr. Woodbury:
Thank you Senator Hardy.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on S.B. 202?
Mr. O’Connor:
We support this piece of legislation.
Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, Assembly district No. 25:
I am here to support S.B. 99 and S.B. 202. They are both wonderful bills. I hope you will consider the amendment Senator Rawson introduced on our behalf for the organ donor tissue network through the attorney general’s office.
There was a little glitch when this law passed on donor plates. Unfortunately, the money was never earmarked. We want to have an anatomical gift fund through the attorney general’s office that is managed through that office where we raise money. I have personally given in excess of $10,000 of my own money to this cause to help educate the public. This would allow for the money to go into the anatomical gift fund in the future. The Governor and attorney general’s office support this bill.
Chairman Shaffer:
We are going to go to our legal department to see if there is something we can do to help you.
Assemblywoman Gibbons:
Thank you. I appreciate all you do for us.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there any more testimony for S.B. 202?
I am both for and against S.B. 202. Not only does DU do a fine job, this organization has spawned a number of related organizations that have been equally successful.
You have before you two or three wildlife-related license plates. I am concerned about a number of issues, one is that wildlife is a public resource that has an image of belonging to everyone; yet, with S.B. 15 and S.B. 202 there are private interests in both bills even though they are working on behalf of the good of the public. I would like to see one bill covering wildlife that everybody can buy into, instead of having a number of bills that may only be partially successful.
SENATE BILL 15: Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of wildlife in Nevada. (BDR 43-332)
I would like to see the Division of Wildlife get these resources because they manage on behalf of the public. A percentage could be directed towards wetlands with the balance to habitat improvements and education. There would be enough money to do something meaningful. I am concerned if only 1000 licenses are sold, there is not going to be enough money and there will be huge demands on the Division of Wildlife with what may be a small amount of money. I support a wildlife plate and I do want to see some of the funds go into the wetlands.
Chairman Shaffer:
Currently, there is a bill circulating through the system that is going to address the license plate issue. Eventually we are going to have to change this so we have some control over it. We are getting repetitious in many places.
We certainly recognize what you want to do. We will see if we can do something in the future. I do not know what can be done about it now because it is already on its way through the process. How about making one license plate on which you could put a decal of a species and you could then change that decal each year?
Ms. Nappe:
I understand in some states they can have different species on their license plates. You could have a wildlife bill with the proceeds going to different groups. That might be another way to go.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify?
Martha Barnes, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
There are fiscal notes attached to both S.B. 99 and S.B. 202 in the amount of $15,707. An appropriation is not requested due to the revolving account previously established to cover expenses associated with the production of a new specialty plate.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions or comments at this time from the committee?
Senator Nolan:
There is a bill coming from the Assembly that will help us get a handle on these license plates. They are very popular. How many do we have right now?
Ms. Barnes:
There were 9 passed in the Seventy-first Legislative Session and 9 have been brought up this session.
Senator Nolan:
That does not include metal plates and military plates and those types of things, correct?
Ms. Barnes:
We consider a specialty plate as one with a specific background. We have a lot of plates with the standard sunset-design background.
Senator Nolan:
Have we contemplated a Nevada-type license plate that would have space for a separate type of artistic decal that would recognize particular organizational interests? We could sell that decal instead of a set of plates.
Ms. Barnes:
I have not heard of that one yet. There is a bill in the Assembly Committee on Transportation that is going to be heard on March 27, 2003. It may address some of these issues.
Senator Nolan:
Okay, thank you.
Ms. Mathiesen:
This bill, I understand, is going to have an amendment to standardize special plates so that two-thirds of the plate identifies the State, and one-third of the plate will be designated for the organization. There are currently 19 special plates approved and 10 more pending this session.
Senator Nolan:
Thank you.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify? If there is no further testimony, this hearing is now adjourned at 4:16 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: