MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
April 8, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 1:42 p.m., on Tuesday, April 8, 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 East 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 Michael Schneider
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Alice Costandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Lee-Ann Keever, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Segway LLC
Matt Dailida, Director, Government Affairs, Segway LLC
Dennis R. Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Robert E. Roshak, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South
Tom Noblett, Owner, Tom’s Hauling
Ruedy Edgington, P.E., Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Transportation
Richard Wilkie, Lobbyist, City of Henderson
Karen M. Coyne, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Kevin L. Tice, Deputy Commander, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety
Michael W. Lawson, Chief, Traffic Administration Division, Nevada Department of Transportation
Bill Gregory, Lobbyist, Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Kevin Smith, Fleet Consultant, Enterprise Fleet Services
Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles
Ed Gobel, Lobbyist, President, Council of Nevada Veterans Organization
Russell M. Rowe, Lobbyist, MVD Express
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 363.
SENATE BILL 363: Exempts electric personal assistive mobility devices from regulation as motor vehicles. (BDR 43-837)
Senator Alice Costandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, explained how the Segway Human Transporter (Transporter) operated. It is a self-balancing, personal transportation device for use in a pedestrian environment. The machine has no engine, brakes, throttle, or steering wheel. It is economical to operate using 5 cents worth of electricity per day.
Senator Titus said the Transporter acts as an extension of a person’s body and cannot be tipped over. Senator Titus said she wanted to bring Nevada’s pedestrian laws into compliance with new technology. She added 33 states and the District of Columbia have approved the Transporter for pedestrian use.
Senator Titus said S.B. 363 defined the Transporter as an electric personal assisted mobility device and included the machine in the current statutory definition of pedestrian. The bill is specific to the Transporter and does not include motorized scooters. Wheelchairs, both manual and electric, were included in S.B. 363 as they had been previously omitted from the statutory definition of pedestrian.
The provisions of S.B. 363 permit the Transporter to be operated on sidewalks, bike paths, and low-speed highways. Senator Titus said Transporters were being used by many governmental entities, including the United States Postal Service and the National Park Service. The city of Atlanta, Georgia, uses the Transporters for traffic enforcement while the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority is testing the Transporter for use by patrol officers.
Senator Titus stated the Transporter gives the physically impaired a sense of freedom and allows them to move more handily. She said S.B. 363 protects the wheelchair-bound citizens of Nevada.
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Segway LLC, presented a handout on the Transporter (Exhibit C) and introduced Matt Dailida, Director, Government Affairs, Segway LLC. Mr. Dailida said his company is located in Manchester, New Hampshire. Mr. Dailida explained when Henry Ford first invented the automobile, it was called the solution in search of a problem. At the time, no infrastructure existed for the car, and few people knew the uses for a car. Mr. Dailida compared the Transporter to the car when it was first invented. He noted the world had been reengineered around the automobile.
Mr. Dailida presented a brief overview of Segway LLC. He said it had been formed from Decca Research and Development. It was founded by Dean Kamen who spent his career developing Class III medical devices. Mr. Kamen had invented dynamic stabilization technology for use in one of his other machines, and then applied the technology to other applications resulting in the Transporter. Mr. Dailida said Segway LLC wanted to give people options by helping them with their transportation needs. He said the need for cars was less frequent in urban areas, but the need to get around still existed. The Transporter fills that niche and has been available for 15 months. Until recently, the Transporter had been sold only to commercial customers, but is now available to individuals.
The Transporter sells for $4950, including training. Mr. Dailida said Segway LLC operates 15 training centers throughout the country. A person has to participate in the mandatory training program before being allowed to take delivery of a Transporter.
Mr. Dailida said he hoped the committee members would endorse S.B. 363 regulating the Transporter’s use by Nevada’s citizens. Mr. Dailida commended Senator Titus for her sponsorship of the Transporter.
Mr. Hillerby said the first section of the bill provided the Transporter’s generic definition. Sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 ensured the Transporter is not referred to as a motor vehicle. Section 4, page 2, included wheelchairs, both manual and electric, in the definition of pedestrian. Mr. Hillerby said the Transporter is not a motor vehicle. It does not require an operator’s license or vehicle registration to be operated in public.
Senator Care asked whether S.B. 363 would make the Transporter the legal equivalent of a pedestrian. Mr. Hillerby said it would. Senator Care asked whether the bill would prevent local governmental entities in Nevada from mandating where the Transporter could be used. Mr. Hillerby said he discussed S.B. 363 with the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division. Based on the discussions, Mr. Hillerby said it was decided the Legislature should not tell every governmental entity in Nevada how to enforce S.B. 363. Mr. Hillerby said the bill would not force local governments to abide by its provisions.
Senator Care asked if the Transporter required insurance for the owner-operator. Mr. Hillerby said no insurance would be required. He added he had discussed the Transporter’s operation with law enforcement officials who felt the due care standard contained in the Nevada Revised Statutes applied to the Transporter’s use.
Senator Care asked if there had been an influx of product liability accidents since the Transporter was introduced. Senator Care stated people were given a list of prohibited activities while operating the Transporter. Mr. Dailida reiterated all Transporter customers must participate in mandatory training prior to taking delivery. The training emphasizes three points: 1) the machine’s operation; 2) the operational modes of the machine, and 3) etiquette. Mr. Dailida said customers are told to act in the same manner they would act while on the Transporter. The training sessions are 4 hours in length.
Mr. Dailida said the Transporter’s top speed is 12.5 miles per hours. The Transporter has lower settings of 5 and 8 miles per hour. The machine could be set to the desired speed, and as it approached the designated speed, the Transporter would lean back into the operator and not exceed the set speed.
Mr. Dailida said the Transporter is a consumer product similar to a bicycle. All consumer products could be included on a person’s homeowner or renter insurance. Mr. Dailida stated Progressive Casualty Insurance Company offers a specific Segway policy designed to prevent theft.
Mr. Dailida said Segway’s paramount concern is public safety. The company has taken great care to build safety into the Transporter. Mr. Dailida stated the Transporter had not been involved in a pedestrian accident during the 15 months it has been available for purchase. Mr. Dailida said the training and product development warranted the use of the Transporter on sidewalks.
Senator Care asked if consumers would be asked to sign a waiver of responsibility prior to buying a Transporter. Mr. Dailida said no.
Senator Schneider asked if Segway LLC would permit people to buy a Transporter franchise and lease the machines to people. Senator Schneider used the example of renting bicycles at the beach as one means of leasing the Transporter. Mr. Dailida said Segway LLC had not thought about future uses or applications for the Transporter, and would not speculate on potential applications or uses for the Transporter.
Senator Schneider asked about the Transporter’s life span. Mr. Dailida said the machine was designed to last 7.5 to 10 years before requiring replacement or upgrade. Mr. Dailida explained the mechanical aspects of the Transporter. He added the Transporter had been designed along the lines of a Xerox copy machine. When one part broke, that part could be replaced without having to replace the entire machine.
Senator Titus said the Transporter could travel 11 to 15 miles on a single charge.
Chairman Shaffer asked how the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) felt about S.B. 363. Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, said DMV would not license or register the Transporter.
Robert E. Roshak, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police (Metro) and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South, said his organizations endorsed S.B. 363.
Senator Care stated:
Before we take the vote, Mr. Chairman, the question I asked about municipalities regulating, we do have representatives of the municipalities present in the room where nothing was said. I just wanted that on the record.
SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 363.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on S.B. 356.
SENATE BILL 356: Revises penalty for certain violations concerning vehicles with loads on highways. (BDR 43-1049)
Tom Noblett, Owner, Tom’s Hauling, testified in support of S.B. 356. Mr. Noblett said the original legislation mandating all loads be covered had been passed in 1925 and revised in 1955 when a refrigerator fell off a truck and killed two people.
Mr. Noblett said a person would be fined $175 per item when items fell off a loaded truck. A person could appear in court and have the fine reduced. If a person did not have time to appear in court, he or she would have to hire a lawyer, adding to the cost of the fine.
Mr. Noblett said the bill is a good one for professional haulers, especially those who obey the law and use nets to secure their loads. Mr. Noblett urged the committee members to pass S.B. 356.
Senator Maurice Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2, said he had known Mr. Noblett for some time. He knew Mr. Noblett to be a person who stood up for what he believed in.
Senator Washington said he thought S.B. 356 was a good piece of legislation for people who made their living hauling goods and trash. It would be wrong to penalize those individuals when others failed to drive professionally.
Chairman Shaffer asked Mr. Noblett what types of loads he hauled. Mr. Noblett said he hauled recycled cardboard, pallets, and trash. All his loads were properly strapped down and secured. Mr. Noblett explained cardboard pieces had a tendency to work their way out of the netting, and there appeared to be no way to prevent cardboard slippage. Mr. Noblett said his drivers had been instructed to stop whenever they saw a piece of cardboard working its way loose from a load. Mr. Noblett said he received $25 per ton of cardboard and could haul 1 ton of cardboard per trip in his truck. To pay a fine of $175, Mr. Noblett would have to haul 7 tons of cardboard, representing 2.5 days of work. Mr. Noblett thanked Senator Washington for introducing S.B. 356.
Chairman Shaffer asked Mr. Noblett if he covered his loads with tarp. Mr. Noblett answered all of his loads were covered. Chairman Shaffer asked if Mr. Noblett abided by the current law requiring loads be covered before transport. Mr. Noblett said he followed the law. He added if a piece of cardboard slipped out from the cover, he could be cited for failure to follow the law. The fine was issued on a per item basis.
Mr. Noblett suggested the law could be amended to include a prompt, cash payment of a $25 fine to the officer issuing the citation. He wanted the law to make a distinction between professional and amateur drivers. Mr. Noblett said he paid for a business license in each jurisdiction in which he hauled.
Chairman Shaffer said the committee members would look at S.B. 356. He cautioned Mr. Noblett that making cash payments to the issuing officer might be construed as a bribe.
Senator Carlton asked whether a professional hauler should be fined differently than the amateur hauler. Mr. Noblett said the fine structure needed to be reviewed and agreed on. He said he became irate when he was fined $175 for the escape of one piece of cardboard.
Senator Nolan asked if Mr. Noblett was talking about two different classes of haulers, professional or commercial haulers and private citizens. He said he thought there should be two standards for issuing the fines. For public safety reasons, Senator Nolan stated all haulers needed to make a reasonable effort to secure their loads prior to transport.
Senator Nolan suggested two penalties: one for those individuals who made a reasonable effort to secure their loads prior to transport, and the second penalty for those individuals who failed to secure their loads. Senator Nolan said professional haulers would be held to a higher standard than private citizens. If an individual lost part of his load after making a reasonable effort to secure the load, the fine would be $25. The fine would be $175 for those individuals who failed to secure their loads.
Mr. Noblett said he had three business licenses for his hauling business. Based on his experience with business licenses, he said a professional hauler who did not have the proper business licenses should be fined higher than the properly licensed individual.
Senator Washington said he thought Senator Nolan’s suggestion was a good one. Senator Washington added when a driver makes every effort to secure his loads, the citing officer should be allowed discretion when determining the amount of the fine. Drivers who made no effort to secure their loads would pay the maximum fine.
Senator Care asked if the current fine structure was based on a per item or per trip basis. Mr. Noblett said the fines were issued on a per item basis. A driver could be cited for each offense during a single trip. Mr. Noblett said with the increase in recycling, there is a need to revise existing legislation as well as the fine structure associated with the legislation.
Ruedy Edgington, P.E., Assistant Director, Operations Division, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), said he was opposed to S.B. 356 for two reasons. First, the $25 fine was too low to be an effective deterrent. He noted the expense required to maintain and clean Nevada’s highways. Second, cleaning and maintaining the highways was dangerous. Mr. Edgington referenced the four NDOT employees injured in November 2002, near Elko, Nevada. He said three of the employees lost limbs as a result of the accident. When loads are properly covered, pieces of the load do not fall on the roadways and NDOT’s employees would not be put at risk while removing debris from Nevada’s highways.
Richard Wilkie, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, said he opposed S.B. 356. He stated subsection 3 of the bill limited the fine to $25. He said he believed fines should be imposed according to a person’s circumstances. It was important for judges and prosecutors to retain discretion when imposing fines.
Karen M. Coyne, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, said she supported Mr. Wilkie’s statements regarding discretion for judges and prosecutors.
Senator Nolan said when an officer issued a citation, the ticket usually had check boxes indicating the amount of the imposed penalty. He asked if the traffic tickets had minimum and maximum amounts printed on them. Ms. Coyne said fines were typically court imposed. Senator Nolan said he was talking about the individual who wished to contest his or her fine. He asked whether it would be acceptable to have an amendment stating a minimum and maximum fine amount with language addressing a person’s intent when transporting loads.
Mr. Edgington said he liked the idea as long as law enforcement officers had the authority to exercise discretion when citing offenders.
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 356. THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. THE FINE STRUCTURE IN THE AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM OF $25 AND MAXIMUM OF $175. THE MINIMUM FINE WOULD BE IMPOSED ON PRIVATE PARTIES OR COMMERCIAL HAULERS WHO MADE EVERY EFFORT TO PROPERLY SECURE THEIR LOADS BEFORE TRANSPORT. THE MAXIMUM FINE WOULD BE IMPOSED ON THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO FAILED TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO SECURE THEIR LOADS PRIOR TO TRANSPORT.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Nolan said he wanted to review the proposed amendment at the next meeting of the Senate Committee on Transportation. Chairman Shaffer said the next meeting would be on Thursday, April 10, 2003. Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst, said the amendment might not be ready for review by Thursday, April 10, 2003. Chairman Shaffer said Friday, April 11, 2003, would be the last day the committee members could act on the bill.
Mr. Noblett said he wanted to be present when the committee members considered the amendment. Senator Carlton told Mr. Noblett the committee members had already approved the amended bill, and it would be voted on by the Senate as a whole.
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on S.B. 478.
SENATE BILL 478: Authorizes Department of Public Safety to adopt certain regulations relating to motor carriers. (BDR 58-524)
Kevin Tice, Deputy Commander, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety (DPS) testified in favor of S.B. 478. He explained the bill amended chapter 706 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) to reflect the separation of the Department of Public Safety from the Department of Motor Vehicles. The existing language in NRS 706 reflected Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety as a combined entity.
Senator Nolan asked about the bill’s practical applications. Lt. Tice said the bill authorizes DPS to adopt regulations relating to motor carriers. He reiterated his testimony regarding the existing language in NRS 706 which addressed the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. The bill reflected both departments in their separate capacities.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 478.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on S.B. 481.
SENATE BILL 481: Establishes provisions relating to maximum load weights per tire and minimum number of tires per axle for vehicles allowed to operate on public highways of this state. (BDR 43-544)
Michael W. Lawson, Chief, Traffic Information Division, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) spoke from prepared text (Exhibit D).
Senator Carlton asked if S.B. 481 applied to vehicles with dual axles, which have been converted to use one tire and whether or not the bill would affect dual-axle vehicles which might be overloaded. Mr. Lawson said yes, adding it would not apply to passenger vehicles with dual axles. Mr. Lawson told the committee members the bill would apply to a new type of tire being sold to consumers. The tire was called a super-single and was approximately 16 inches in width. Under current Nevada law, vehicles were allowed to have 20,000 pounds of pressure per single axle. However, the design of Nevada’s paved surfaces does not accommodate such a high-pressure setting. The law would accommodate normal loading for pavement wear. The practice of using a super-single tire on vehicles with dual-axles is called singling out. The intent of S.B. 481 was to address dual-axled vehicles using the super-single tires.
Senator Carlton wanted to know whether individuals using the super-single tires would be turned into outlaws should S.B. 481 be passed. Mr. Lawson said nobody would be turned into an outlaw. The use of super-single tires on dual‑axle vehicles was not a problem. As an example, he mentioned an 18‑wheeled vehicle converted to operate with 8 super-single tires. Under current State law, it would be legal to convert a truck from 18 to 8 wheels. Vehicles converted to use the super-single tires damaged the roads 20 times more than a conventional tire, and nothing in State law prevented the conversion.
As the use of super-single tires was not widespread, the legislation was proactive. Mr. Lawson said the use of super-single tires was unregulated. Senator Nolan asked what type of vehicles used the super-single tires and how long the super-single tires had been on the market. Mr. Lawson told him tanker trucks were the predominate users of the super-single tires. The super-single tires would be used on the tanker trailer reducing the number of tires from 8 to 4. Senator Nolan asked whether the tankers are interstate haulers. Mr. Lawson said most tankers are interstate petroleum haulers. Mr. Lawson was not certain if other states regulated the use of the super-single tire, but thought the state of California might regulate the use of the super-single tires. Nevada would regulate the pounds-per-square-inch, per tire through S.B. 481.
Senator Nolan asked when a vehicle’s tires exceeded the dimensions listed in S.B. 481, would the driver be in violation of the statute and receive a traffic citation. Mr. Lawson answered yes, adding the driver would be guilty of an overweight violation. The fine would be 8 cents per pound for each pound in excess of 10,000. A graduated scale had been built into the fine structure.
Senator Nolan said he understood the reason for S.B. 481 and agreed with the bill’s intent. He asked how the committee members could accommodate the trucking industry by allowing the use of the super-single tires while preserving Nevada’s roads.
Mr. Lawson said many of the super-single tires do not haul 20,000 pounds. The vehicles using the super-single tires have to comply with tire pressure regulations because the vehicles are interstate. The legislation allowed Nevada to cite for excessive weight on super-single tires. A single-axle vehicle equipped with 16-inch-wide, super-single tires could haul up to 20,000 pounds. Under S.B. 481, the load limit would be 16,000 pounds. Mr. Lawson said 16,000 pounds was the weight limit of most trucks equipped with super-single tires.
Mr. Lawson said he discussed the use of the super-single tires with representatives of the Nevada Motor Transport Association who supported S.B. 481.
Senator Nolan said he was comfortable with Mr. Lawson’s explanation regarding the need for S.B. 481. However, Senator Nolan asked the Nevada Motor Transport Association to provide information on double-fuel haulers and whether those vehicles would exceed the weight limitations contained in the bill. Senator Nolan thought there might be a problem with the legislation if the double-fuel haulers exceeded the weight limits allowed in S.B. 481.
Chairman Shaffer closed the hearing on S.B. 481 and opened the hearing on S.B. 482.
SENATE BILL 482: Provides that certain leases of motor vehicles or trailers do not constitute sales or create security interests under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-1043)
Bill Gregory, Lobbyist, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, introduced Kevin Smith, Fleet Consultant, Enterprise Commercial Vehicle Fleet Leasing Operations. Mr. Smith read from prepared text (Exhibit E).
Senator Care stated he might have misread the bill. He said when he first read the bill, he thought of a person who leased a car with an option to purchase for 4 years, but, after 3.5 years, he missed a payment resulting in the vehicle being repossessed by the lessor. The lessee could then argue he had equity in the vehicle. Senator Care stated it was not the bill’s intent to legislate the situation he outlined.
Senator Care asked for the definition of TRAC leasing. Mr. Smith told him TRAC leasing is an acronym for terminal rental adjustment clause leasing, which dealt with a fixed residual amount at the end of a lease. Senator Care asked if he was describing a lease where the lessor and lessee agreed on a purchase price at the end of the lease. Mr. Smith said no, adding in a TRAC lease, the lessee was responsible for a set amount at the end of the lease’s term.
Mr. Smith said some leases have an option to purchase clause in them. Those leases are called closed-in leases. The lessee has two options at the end of the closed-in lease. The first option is to purchase the vehicle and the second option is to allow the lessor to sell the vehicle with the understanding the lessee will be responsible for the difference between the value of the vehicle and the amount for which the vehicle actually sold. Mr. Smith said in such instances the vehicles would be sold at a wholesale level. The TRAC clause set out the exact amount owed to the lessor by the lessee at the end of the lease. It was specific to commercial leases used by businesses.
Senator Care asked if 43 other states had legislation similar to S.B. 482. Mr. Smith replied yes. Senator Care asked if Enterprise Rent-A-Car was involved in litigation relating to bankruptcy. Mr. Smith replied he was not aware of any bankruptcy litigation involving Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Mr. Smith said the main thrust of the bill protects Enterprise Rent-A-Car’s status as a true lessor or owner of a vehicle. The bill gives Enterprise Rent-A-Car the ability to take possession of a vehicle without involving a bankruptcy court. The vehicle could not be sold to satisfy a person’s debt by a bankruptcy court.
Senator Care asked if Enterprise Rent-A-Car’s lease contracts contained language clarifying vehicle ownership. Mr. Smith said those leases contained clarifying language. The bill’s purpose was to make clear a TRAC lease, a true lease, and would prevent Enterprise Rent-A-Car’s interests from being misconstrued as a security interest in the vehicle.
Senator Care asked if Enterprise Rent-A-Car held the title on a lease vehicle. Mr. Smith replied yes. Senator Care said it appeared holding the title to a leased vehicle was not sufficient to protect Enterprise Rent-A-Car’s interest in the vehicle. Mr. Smith said that was how he understood the matter.
Senator Hardy said:
Mr. Chairman, can I just disclose Enterprise Rent-A-Car and, specifically, Mr. Smith are members of the association that employs me. And he’s the representative of Enterprise to our association … certainly doesn’t impact him anymore than it does anybody else. But, I wanted to disclose that.
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on S.B. 483.
SENATE BILL 483: Revises provisions regarding identification cards, drivers’ licenses and driving privileges. (BDR 43-483)
Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), said S.B. 483 had four provisions which had not been applied to the bill’s sections in a logical manner. Because of this illogical application, Ms. Mathiesen said she would be addressing the bill by topic, rather than section number.
The first section addressed unlicensed drivers. The current sanctions for driving offenses applied only to licensed drivers. The provisions of S.B. 483 allow DMV to record convictions, assess demerit points, and suspend the driving privilege of Nevada identification card (ID) holders who commit traffic offenses.
Ms. Mathiesen compared a licensed driver to an unlicensed driver. She said after a licensed driver accumulated 12 demerits for traffic offenses, his or her driver’s license would be suspended by DMV. An unlicensed driver could be guilty of the same traffic offenses, but his or her record with DMV would be cleared of those offenses. An unlicensed driver guilty of traffic offenses could apply for a Nevada driver’s licenses, be given one, and have a clean driving record. When applying for a driver’s license in another state, the unlicensed driver would have a clear driving record with Nevada. The clear driving record status would be transmitted to any state requesting the information, and would result in a license being issued. However, a licensed driver with a suspended Nevada driver’s license might not be given a driver’s license in another state.
Sections 1 through 3 addressed the driving record of an unlicensed driver. Sections 5, 6, and 8 revised the definition of license to include future driving privileges, and allowed DMV to carry out the provisions of those sections. Sections 9 and 16 authorized the removal of 3 demerit points for unlicensed drivers who attend a traffic safety school. The provision was consistent with the law for licensed drivers.
The second provision of the bill placed an expiration date on Nevada ID cards. The cards had no expiration date and were valid for an indefinite period of time. The DMV would like a 4-year expiration date on ID cards matching the expiration date on Nevada drivers’ licenses. An expiration date ensured the DMV had current contact information and a photograph on file for an applicant. A renewal process for ID cards combined with an expiration date would permit DMV to identify which applicants continued to reside in Nevada.
Ms. Mathiesen told the committee members S.B. 483 would be affected by the passage of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 441, the Homeland Security Bill.
Assembly Bill 441: Enacts provisions relating to ensuring security of State of Nevada and its residents with respect to acts of terrorism and related emergencies. (BDR 19-1139)
Ms. Mathiesen explained A.B. 441 contained a provision tying the expiration dates of drivers’ licenses or ID cards to documents required by the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. If A.B. 441 were enacted, all drivers’ licenses and ID cards issued by DMV would be required to have an expiration date.
Section 10 identified the fee structure for ID card renewals. Sections 11 and 12 changed the language to reflect the expiration date of ID cards. These sections also modified the amount of time a person had to report name or address changes. The requested change would be consistent with the time given to drivers for reporting name or address changes on their driver’s licenses. The time would be lengthened from 10 to 30 days.
Section 18 allowed an applicant for a new or renewed ID car an opportunity to register to vote in Nevada elections. An amendment had been requested for section 19 (Exhibit F). Ms. Mathiesen explained the amendment was needed as there were 350,000 ID cards in Nevada facing renewal under section 19 as originally written. The amendment provided for a structured renewal period based upon the original issue date of the ID card. A fiscal note showing projected revenue of $525,000 in FY 07 was attached to section 19.
The third provision pertained to the identification documents accepted by the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services as proof of name and age. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) was working to establish federal legislation for the standardization of the process by which drivers’ licenses and ID cards were issued. Until a standard process became effective, uniform identification standards had been established by AAMVA. All 50 states had been asked to adopt and follow those standards. The bill identified identification documents which were not likely to be changed by the federal government. Through S.B. 483, DMV was requesting authority to adopt other identification documents, which would be acceptable through regulation.
Sections 7, 12, and 17 contained the list of recommended identification documents for drivers’ licenses, ID cards and motorcycle licenses. Ms. Mathiesen explained the proposed amendment for sections 7 and 17 (Exhibit F).
The last provision of the bill applied to commercial drivers’ licenses with hazardous materials endorsements. Ms. Mathiesen said the USA Patriot Act required all state licensing agencies to run a criminal history and background check on all commercial license applicants applying for a commercial driver’s license with a hazardous materials endorsement. The Federal Bureau of Investigation required statutory authority from the states to process and provide the criminal background information requested by the states.
Senator Care asked whether the suspension of future driving privileges in Nevada would affect the ability of an unlicensed Nevada citizen to obtain a driver’s license in another state. Ms. Mathiesen said the suspension would be in effect even when a person applied for a driver’s license in another state. She added the person would have to wait for the suspension to be lifted before they would be eligible to apply for a driver’s license in any state, including Nevada. The appropriate reinstatement fees would have to be paid.
Senator Care asked if other states used the future driving privilege concept. Ms. Mathiesen said she did not know. Senator Care asked if Ms. Mathiesen knew from where the concept of future driving privileges came. She replied the DMV had developed the concept. One of DMV’s divisions entered criminal convictions in the DMV’s computer system. The division employees indicated a number of the convictions had been issued for unlicensed drivers holding only a Nevada ID card. The DMV tracked the number of convictions for unlicensed drivers for a 1-month period, and determined there had been 225 convictions for unlicensed drivers during the month.
Senator Carlton asked about the amendment for section 7, subsection 2 (Exhibit F) of the bill. She verified the bill addressed the Consular of State when reporting the birth of American citizens abroad.
Senator Carlton asked about the amendment for section 7, subsection 5 (Exhibit F) of the bill. She asked how far back the DMV intended to track a person’s driving record in other states, and if a number of people would be required to retest for a driver’s license when they moved to Nevada.
Ms. Mathiesen said DMV would waive the test based upon the documentation presented to the DMV by the applicant. The DMV could also request additional identification from the applicant. Senator Carlton wanted to know what the DMV would use for stringent standards when issuing a driver’s license to a new Nevada resident. Ms. Mathiesen said Nevada Revised Statutes stated the DMV would not accept a foreign passport as identification when issuing a driver’s license. Some states would accept a foreign passport as a form of identification and issue a driver’s license based on that documentation. In that instance, Nevada would issue a driver’s license if the applicant provided another form of Nevada-approved identification to supplement the foreign passport.
Senator Carlton asked how DMV would track the standards used by other states and would those criteria have to be backdated to the issuance of a person’s driver’s license in another state. She said it was possible for a state to change its identification requirements on a yearly basis.
Ms. Mathiesen said she was confused by the Senator’s question. She said the DMV’s management services section reviewed and updated identification documents approved for use in other states. Senator Carlton said the state of Missouri issued her a driver’s license in 1977, and after she moved to Nevada in 1990, she obtained a Nevada driver’s license. Senator Carlton asked whether DMV would review the accepted forms of identification used by Missouri in 1977. She also asked if Nevada maintained a list of acceptable forms of identification for other states on a year-by-year basis. Ms. Mathiesen said DMV maintained a list of the accepted forms of identification by other states including calendar dates of acceptance. Senator Carlton said the variables in the accepted forms of identification, added to Nevada’s changing population, would make a large workload for DMV’s staff.
Senator Carlton stated if DMV did not maintain an accurate list of accepted forms of identification, and denied a driver’s license to a person, there could be a problem with DMV not having the proper authority for such an action.
Senator Carlton referred to section 7, subsection 5 of the bill, which reads:
The Department may refuse to accept a driver’s license issued by another state or the District of Columbia if the Department determines that the other state or the District of Columbia has less stringent standards than the State of Nevada for the issuance of a driver’s license.
Senator Care said in the past, the Senate Committee on Judiciary received testimony regarding the standards used by different states when issuing concealed weapons permits. He said the standards varied from state to state. Senator Care said he was afraid if Nevada did not honor another state’s accepted forms of identification, that state might refuse to honor Nevada’s accepted forms of identification.
Senator Care stated the phrase “may refuse” in section 7, subsection 5 was discretionary in nature. Ms. Mathiesen said the bill’s intent was to provide for the changing issuance standards and dates from other states.
Chairman Shaffer asked if the committee members wanted to vote on S.B. 187.
SENATE BILL 187: Revises provisions governing erection and maintenance of signs to designate parking spaces for use by handicapped persons. (BDR 20-761)
Senator Nolan said he had met with a representative from Clark County. At the meeting, Senator Nolan had been told Clark County had complied with the request of the Senate Committee on Transportation in developing a program designed to inform property and business owners of their responsibility to provide properly worded signs designating handicapped parking for their patrons.
Senator Nolan said, before the committee members voted on S.B. 187, all of Nevada’s counties should be given an opportunity to comply with the Senate Committee on Transportation’s request that they develop a program for each county designed to inform property and business owners of their responsibility to provide properly worded signs designating handicapped parking for their patrons.
Senator Nolan said he understood the bill’s proponent wanted the committee members to act on S.B. 187. However, the committee members had asked the counties, in good faith, to demonstrate they would develop a program. Senator Nolan wanted to give the counties the chance to develop the program. If the counties failed to comply with the request made by the Senate Committee on Transportation, the committee members would then vote on the bill.
Senator Hardy said he concurred with Senator Nolan. Chairman Shaffer said the committee members concurred and would wait until Thursday’s meeting before voting on the bill. The chairman stated the committee members had given their word to the counties.
Ed Gobel, Lobbyist, President, Council of Nevada Veterans Organization, said only one county in Nevada had agreed to comply with the committee’s request. The deputy county manager in Clark County stated Clark County had taken no position on S.B. 187. For the past two legislative sessions, the counties had been requested to comply with existing legislation pertaining to handicapped parking designations. Mr. Gobel asked if the committee members were going to wait until every Nevada county submitted a proposed program for review. Chairman Shaffer reiterated the committee members’ commitment to the counties. The committee members had given their word no action would be taken on S.B. 187 until the counties had been given an opportunity to develop a compliance program.
Senator Nolan said Clark County’s program had been developed in an expedited fashion. The program was a no- or low-cost program, which would make a difference. Senator Nolan said other Nevada counties should mirror Clark County’s program. He stated the counties should be able to implement a similar program and would have less trouble implementing such a program due to smaller populations. Senator Nolan said he would not vote favorably for S.B. 187 as written.
Senator Nolan asked Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, to explain Clark County’s proposed plan. Mr. Musgrove said he did not have all the details of the program. He stated Clark County was developing an internal information campaign producing a brochure which would be coordinated with the volunteer group of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro). Currently, the volunteer group could cite people illegally parked in handicapped spaces. Under Clark County’s program, the duties of the volunteer group would be expanded to provide instruction to business owners on their responsibilities under the law. The instruction would include mailers and flyers which the businesses would post on their doors. The planning department and building inspectors of Clark County had been given a proactive sense of existing State law and their responsibilities to enforce the law. Mr. Musgrove said he would have additional information for review by the committee members no later than Thursday, April 10, 2003.
Mr. Musgrove said Clark County’s Sandstone Online newsletter would contain additional information on the program. The newsletter is distributed electronically to all county employees and can be reviewed by members of the public who access Clark County’s Website.
Senator Nolan said compliance with the committee’s request by all of Nevada’s counties should be considered a high priority legislative request. Senator Nolan said he was content Clark County was showing a good faith effort to comply with the committee’s request and to address the problem of people illegally parking in handicapped parking spaces.
Mr. Musgrove apologized for speaking on Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s behalf at a previous committee meeting. Mr. Musgrove said Clark County had made the committee’s request a priority.
Chairman Shaffer told Mr. Gobel the committee members would be taking no further action on S.B. 187 until Thursday.
Mr. Gobel asked if the bill were to fail in the Senate, would he be able to place an amendment on an Assembly bill, which would prevent the death of additional people.
Senator Nolan said the bill had a fiscal note attached and he was not sure if the bill would be exempt. Chairman Shaffer said he did not think the bill would be exempt. Senator Nolan stated the bill would not be exempt as it affected local, not State government.
Senator Amodei suggested checking with the Assembly to determine if any Assembly measures pertained to the subject of illegally using handicapped parking spaces. Senator Amodei wanted the Legislature to retain oversight on the programs being developed by the counties during the remainder of the Legislative Session. Senator Amodei said he wanted a progress report made to the committee in 30 days.
Senator Nolan said Chairman Shaffer suggested having the bill’s fiscal note reviewed by the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Fiscal Analysis Division to determine whether the fiscal note affected the State. Senator Nolan noted some of the State-owned buildings were not in compliance with the law.
Senator Nolan said he would advise the counties and cities in Nevada in the event the committee decided to mirror Clark County’s effort in the statutes. Senator Nolan thought it would be easier to mirror Clark County’s effort than it would be to pass S.B. 187 as written.
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst, reminded the committee members of the April 11, 2003 deadline affecting S.B. 187. Even if it were found to be exempt, the committee members would have to vote on the bill by the deadline in order to have it considered by the Senate Committee on Finance. If the bill was not acted on in a timely fashion, it would die and receive no further consideration from either house.
Chairman Shaffer reopened the hearing on S.B. 481.
Chairman Shaffer said Senator Nolan was satisfied with S.B. 481. The committee would proceed with the bill. Senator Nolan said he had discussed the bill with Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association. Mr. Capurro told Senator Nolan S.B. 481 would exempt the carriers using the super-single tires. The bill had been specifically and narrowly worded to affect only the carriers using one over-inflated tire on a dual-axle configuration.
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 481.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARLTON WAS ABSENT THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 483. ONLY SECTION 7, SUBSECTIONS 2, 3, 4, AND 5 OF THE AMENDMENT PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES WOULD BE USED IN THE AMENDMENT. THE BALANCE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD NOT BE USED. THE AMENDMENT WOULD REFLECT ELIMINATING THE $4.00 RENEWAL FEE FOR INDIVIDUALS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER CONTAINED IN SECTION 10 OF THE BILL.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARLTON WAS ABSENT THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer reopened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 363.
SENATE BILL 363: Exempts electric personal assistive mobility devices from regulation as motor vehicles. (BDR 43-837)
Senator Nolan said some of the municipalities had told him there were instances where a truck had been carelessly loaded and lost part of the load in the middle of the highway during transport. The lost loads often resulted in serious accidents when people swerved to avoid the debris.
Senator Nolan said he thought a fine of $175 would not be much of a deterrent to those individuals who improperly loaded their trucks, especially when an accident resulted from the careless loading of trucks. Senator Nolan suggested imposing an additional fine when a driver acted in a reckless manner. The imposition of the additional fine surpassed the amendment passed by the committee members.
Senator Care asked if Nevada had a statute addressing inattention to detail when driving a motor vehicle. If such a statute existed, then the additional penalty suggested by Senator Nolan was already provided.
Senator Nolan said if the inattention to detail provision did not exist in statute, then S.B. 363 would be the vehicle to create such a statutory provision. Richard Wilkie, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, said he was concerned the placement of a $175 cap on the fine would not be sufficient should a person be injured or killed due to a lost load of debris. He said truck drivers should take personal responsibility for their loads. Mr. Wilkie stated he felt it would be best if the fine were left to the discretion of the judge or prosecutor. A professional hauler would take the time to properly secure a load.
Senator Nolan asked Ms. Lyons to see if an inattention to detail provision existed in the Nevada Revised Statutes. If such a provision existed in the statute, the bill would be left status quo. If there was not an inattention to detail provision in statute, the committee members could amend S.B. 363 on the Floor of the Senate. The proposed Floor amendment would hold to a higher standard of reckless disregard resulting in a vehicular accident. The fine would be raised to a minimum amount with $500 as the suggested minimum fine.
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on S.B. 384.
SENATE BILL 384: Authorizes Department of Motor Vehicles to establish program to contract with persons to provide certain services otherwise required to be provided by Department. (BDR 43-1154)
Senator Hardy asked if there were amendments to the bill. Chairman Shaffer told him there were. Ms. Lyons said the proposed amendment would create a pilot program and would give DMV the opportunity to set up the appropriate regulations for the pilot program.
Senator Hardy asked whether the proponents of S.B. 384 agreed to the amendment. Russell M. Rowe, Lobbyist, MVD Express, said he and Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles had worked together to draft the amendment on his client’s behalf.
SENATE BILL 256: Makes various changes concerning drivers’ licenses issued to persons under 18 years of age. (BDR 43-714)
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 384.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARLTON WAS ABSENT THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 256. THE AMENDMENTS PROVIDED SECTION 2, SUBSECTION 1, LINES 24, 36, AND 37, BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE YOUTHS APPLYING FOR A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING HE OR SHE HAD NOT BEEN CITED FOR A MOVING VIOLATION IN THE 6 MONTHS PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR A DRIVER’S LICENSE.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS CARLTON AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT THE VOTE.)
*****
There being no further business, Chairman Shaffer adjourned the Senate Committee on Transportation at 3:29 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lee-Ann Keever,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: