MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
April 17, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 1:47 p.m., on Thursday, April 17, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 Maggie Carlton
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Terry Care (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Katherine (Kathy) McClain, Assembly District No. 15
Assemblywoman Sharron E. Angle, Assembly District No. 26
Assemblyman Donald (Don) G. Gustavson, Assembly District No. 30
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Lee-Ann Keever, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Kathy Augustine, State Controller, Office of the State Controller
Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association
Karen Winchell, Manager, Motor Carrier Section, Department of Motor Vehicles
Michael W. Lawson, Chief, Traffic Administration Division, Nevada Department of Transportation
Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programs Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Dennis R. Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 30.
ASSEMBLY BILL 30 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-67)
Assemblywoman Katherine (Kathy) McClain, Assembly District No. 15, said there was a problem with people moving to Nevada and failing to register their cars with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in a timely manner. The State was adversely affected financially by the failure of those individuals to comply with Nevada’s motor vehicle registration requirements. The first part of A.B. 30 required a new resident to register his or her motor vehicles in Nevada when he or she obtained a Nevada driver’s license. The revenue realized by the bill would probably be sufficient to fund salary raises for Nevada’s schoolteachers.
Assemblywoman McClain said the State did not have an exact figure on the revenue lost when new residents failed to register their vehicles in a timely manner. She said in 1996, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) participated in a weeklong survey. During a 1-week period, drivers were pulled over and their vehicle registrations checked. Based on the number of drivers with Nevada drivers’ licenses and out-of-state vehicle registrations, DPS estimated the State lost $17 million during 1996.
The second part of the bill would plug the State’s lost revenue stream. During the past 2 years, the State lost $8 million by issuing refunds for vehicle registration. It was estimated the State had lost $5 million during 2002 through the refund process.
Assemblywoman McClain said a bill had been passed in 1997 that became effective in 2001. The purpose of the bill was to provide refunds on vehicle registrations. The bill did not specify the amount of a refund or the reason for a refund. In the 2 years since the bill became effective, the State issued refund checks in amounts ranging from 1 cent to $5000. The cost of processing a check was much more than 1 cent. Assemblywoman McClain said an attempt had been made during 71st Legislative Session to repeal the refund bill. The refund provision had been contained in a bill dealing with classic cars. Nobody was sure how the refund provision had been inserted in the original legislation.
Assemblywoman McClain said the Assembly Committee on Transportation had been concerned about some individuals being adversely affected if they were unable to obtain a refund on their vehicle registration. Assemblywoman McClain cited an elderly woman who did not drive and whose spouse had died. In that instance, the individual should be issued a refund. Another example cited included a person whose vehicle was totaled in an accident, but did not immediately obtain a replacement vehicle. The Assembly Committee on Transportation amended A.B. 30 to include provisions allowing the DMV to write regulations for registration refunds. The amendment contained specific criteria under which refunds would be issued.
Assemblywoman McClain said the State would not suffer economically if refunds were issued under certain controlled conditions. The agencies involved in the registration refund process were unsure of the exact fiscal impact on the State if refunds were issued under the provisions of A.B. 30.
Assemblywoman McClain said she was agreeable to any action the committee members took on the Assembly’s amendment to A.B. 30. She stated she strongly thought there would be problems with the Assembly should the amendment be removed in its entirety from the bill.
Senator Carlton said she remembered working on the bill in a conference committee with Assemblywoman McClain during the 71st Legislative Session. She asked Assemblywoman McClain whether A.B. 30 contained a threshold amount for issuing refund checks.
Assemblywoman McClain said a threshold amount of $100 or more was contained in the amendment to the bill. The refund would be issued only when the requesting party met all the criteria required for a registration refund. The DMV would establish refund criteria through regulation.
Senator Schneider asked about the large number of Oregon license plates in Las Vegas. He said in some of the newer housing developments in Las Vegas, it seemed as though the majority of vehicles had Oregon license plates. Assemblywoman McClain said A.B. 30 was written to allow the DMV to capture new residents for vehicle registration. The bill would be reviewed periodically to determine if a provision should be added to the measure requiring proof of Nevada vehicle registration when an individual renewed his or her driver’s license.
Senator Nolan said S.B. 214 was pending in the Senate Committee on Finance. This measure required people to pay their fair share of vehicle registration or risk being turned in to an 800 number by somebody they may have offended.
SENATE BILL 214: Revises provisions concerning enforcement of requirement of registration of motor vehicle by new resident of this state. (BDR 43‑1058)
Assemblywoman McClain said A.B. 30 would not affect those individuals who purchased a new vehicle and transferred their existing registration to the new vehicle. Additionally, the bill would not affect “snowbirds,” because these people are part-time residents of Nevada.
Kathy Augustine, State Controller, Office of the State Controller, read from prepared text (Exhibit C). Ms. Augustine said A.B. 30 would become effective upon passage and approval. However, due to a 30-day lag time experienced by her staff, refunds would be issued for 1 month after the measure became effective.
Ms. Augustine said if sections 8 and 9 were not eliminated, the mandatory language in those sections should be changed to permissive language.
Senator Nolan asked for the circumstances under which a refund for approximately $5000 had been issued for vehicle registration. Ms. Augustine said she was not sure of the exact circumstances surrounding the refund, but thought it could have been issued to a fleet motor pool.
Senator Nolan asked for the percentage of checks issued in the amount of $10 or less. Ms. Augustine referred to Exhibit C, which contained a breakdown of checks issued for $1 or less. No data was available to answer Senator Nolan’s question. Ms. Augustine offered to provide Senator Nolan with the information he requested. She said Exhibit D contained additional information on refunds issued by the DMV. Senator Nolan said he did not require additional information. He agreed there should be a set amount under which a refund would not issued. However, documentation was needed on the number of nuisance checks issued by the State. Senator Nolan said, depending on the check amount, the refund checks would be valuable to some individuals.
Assemblywoman McClain said approximately eight states issue vehicle registration refunds. Each of the eight states has narrow and strict criteria for issuing vehicle registration refunds. Two of the criteria were: 1) the license plates had never been used, and 2) the permanent relinquishment of a driver’s license. Assemblywoman McClain referred to Exhibit D prepared by the DMV at her request. The exhibit listed the number and amount of refunds issued by the DMV for a 1-day period in January 2003. Assemblywoman McClain said the original legislation was a “very bad bill” which the 2001 Legislature attempted to abolish.
Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles, said there were two components to A.B. 30. The first component required a new resident to register his or her vehicles when applying for a Nevada driver’s license. An individual would be required to register all of his or her vehicles at that time. Ms. Lewis said she suspected a person might not obtain a Nevada driver’s license after learning the cost to register his or her vehicles in Nevada. Ms. Lewis said estimating the registration costs could be a lengthy process, because a DMV employee would need to provide an estimate for each vehicle being registered for the first time in the State.
Ms. Lewis said when people moved to Nevada, they incurred the traditional costs associated with moving and they might not have the money for vehicle registration. Ms. Lewis said people would not acquire Nevada drivers’ license if they were also required to register all of their vehicles when applying for their drivers’ licenses. The DMV might be creating an environment in which people would either elect to not obtain a Nevada driver’s license, or wait in line for a long time due to the process necessary to provide a registration estimate for each vehicle.
Ms. Lewis said a solution to the new-resident registration problem had to be found. She said she wanted the committee members to be aware of some of the potential problems facing the DMV should A.B. 30 be enacted. Ms. Lewis stated she was not sure about a solution.
Senator Carlton asked whether there would be a way to program the DMV’s computer system to generate notices of registration. Senator Carlton said when new residents received their Nevada drivers’ licenses they could be informed they had a certain amount of time in which to register their vehicles in Nevada. If they failed to meet the deadline, then their drivers’ licenses would be revoked. The DMV could generate a list of those individuals needing to register their vehicles in Nevada.
Assemblywoman McClain said the DMV tried to program the agency’s computers to generate such notices. However, there were problems with the program and the DMV was not able to use it.
Assemblywoman McClain said 80 percent of the population abided by the law. She said she wanted to capture the 20 percent who did not abide by the law. The Assembly Committee on Transportation received testimony indicating new residents could be notified of the need to register their vehicles through signs at the DMV offices, in the DMV’s new resident guide, or through information posted on the DMV’s Website.
Assemblywoman McClain said when people moved to Nevada, they paid deposits on a rental unit and utilities. New residents impacted Nevada roads and schools. The State needed the money raised by vehicle registration to help offset the cost of building and maintaining Nevada’s roads and schools.
Senator Carlton said when her family moved to Nevada, she was not aware of the need to immediately register her family’s vehicles. Senator Carlton thought she would not have to register her family’s vehicles in Nevada until the original registration expired. Her insurance carrier had not been licensed by the State and she had to purchase a new auto insurance policy. Senator Carlton and her husband immediately registered their vehicles and obtained vehicle insurance, which represented a financial hardship for their family. She said other families moving to Nevada faced similar financial hardships should they be required to register all of their vehicles at one time. Senator Carlton said she wanted Nevada’s new residents to be informed about their responsibilities under Nevada law.
Ms. Lewis referred to a 1995 amendment to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 482.385, subsection 3, paragraph (a). The amendment decreased the time a new resident had to register his or her vehicle in Nevada. The time had been decreased from 45 days to 30 days. Ms. Lewis said A.B. 30 deleted the section.
Ms. Lewis said when an individual applied for a driver’s license, but did not have a vehicle, he or she could sign an affidavit to that effect. Senator Carlton said she wanted to know whether or not an individual would be assessed penalties if he or she signed the affidavit under false pretenses. Ms. Lewis told Senator Carlton no penalties would be incurred should a person sign the affidavit under false pretenses.
Chairman Shaffer asked Ms. Lewis if she had a position on the bill. Ms. Lewis said she supported the bill, but believed the refund and out-of-state registration issues had to be addressed. Ms. Lewis expressed her concern about the potential impact the bill would have on DMV’s customers, employees, and services.
Chairman Shaffer asked Ms. Lewis how the DMV would be impacted should the bill pass. Ms. Lewis said if people were required to register their vehicles in Nevada at the same time they obtained their drivers’ license, some individuals would decide not to obtain a Nevada driver’s license.
Assemblywoman McClain said individuals without a Nevada driver’s license would not be able to get a job in Nevada or cash a check. Chairman Shaffer said it would be a financial help to the State when a family registered at least one of their vehicles in Nevada. Assemblywoman McClain agreed with the Chairman.
Ms. Lewis said:
Mr. Chairman, for the record, on the department side in administrative services, we have one full-time person who, since this law went into effect, has been consumed by handling these refunds. She was doing other duties prior to that, but because of this impact, that’s what she’s had to do. So, it would certainly assist us on the refund side to get this person back to what she should be doing.
Chairman Shaffer said the committee members had approved a bill allowing people to register their vehicles even when they did not have their insurance verification cards. Assemblyman McClain said she was talking about refunds, not insurance. Ms. Lewis stated the chairman was correct. The DMV submitted a bill designed to make people’s lives easier when conducting business at the DMV.
Chairman Shaffer said the committee members would not take any action on A.B. 30, as the full committee was not present to vote on the matter.
Chairman Shaffer closed the hearing on A.B. 30 and opened the hearing on A.B. 83.
ASSEMBLY BILL 83 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning certain motor vehicles. (BDR 43-85)
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association (NMTA), said the bill had been drafted at NMTA’s request.
Mr. Capurro said the Assembly Committee on Transportation amended section 1, pertaining to engine braking systems also known as ”Jake Brakes.” Sections 2 through 5 adopted the federal definition for a longer combination or combinations of tractor-trailers. Section 6 repealed the Helms’ Amendment, an alternative weight schedule. The Helms’ Amendment provided a brake for short, coupled‑end dump trucks, which were no longer in use. The Nevada Highway Patrol requested the repeal of Section 6 as it confused law enforcement officials because it addressed obsolete equipment. If the section was repealed, there would only be one weight formula in State law.
The first five sections of the bill addressed engine braking systems and adoption of the federal formula for weight and length of tractor-trailers. Recommendations made by the Multi-State Highway Transportation Agreement (MSHTA) were contained in the bill. Nevada is a member of the MSHTA. Mr. Capurro said the chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation and the chairwoman of the Assembly Committee on Transportation were statutory members of MSHTA. The membership of the MSHTA is comprised of the 10 western states. The organization’s main goal is to achieve continuity between the laws of the states in which longer tractor-trailer combinations operated.
Mr. Capurro said complaints had been received concerning the inappropriate use of ”Jake Brakes” or engine braking systems. Mr. Capurro referred to highway cowboys who removed the mufflers from their trucks resulting in a low, staccato sound. All trucks were equipped with a muffler system at the time of purchase. The truck manufacturers intended the muffler system to remain an integral part of a truck’s mechanical system during its lifetime. Section 1 would make it a misdemeanor to remove a truck’s muffler system, or use the truck’s engine braking system in an inappropriate fashion. A truck with a muffled engine braking system had a decibel rating of 80, while an unmuffled engine braking system had a decibel rating of 100-plus. The muffled engine braking system is an important component of a truck’s safety system. Mr. Capurro referred to the ban on trucks transporting goods over the Hoover Dam in Clark County. This ban applied to trucks entering or leaving Nevada through Arizona. Since the ban went into effect, truck drivers had an additional 26 to 29 miles added to their trips. Trucks were now routed through Laughlin, a route with a number of 6 percent grades. Safety hazards occurred when truck drivers were unable to use “Jake Brakes” on 6 percent grades. A truck’s regular braking system would not hold up when frequently used for speed control on steep grades.
Mr. Capurro said A.B. 83 was based on Colorado and Oklahoma laws. The Jacobs Vehicles Services Company had been satisfied with the change in Colorado’s existing law. The change solved the problem of removing a muffler from an engine braking system. Section 2 mandated a violation of section 1 would be considered a misdemeanor.
Mr. Capurro referred to chapter 23 of the Federal Code of Regulations (Exhibit E). Section 2, page 2, lines 20 through 24, mirrored the weight and length requirements contained in Exhibit E. Mr. Capurro said 16 states had longer combination laws. The federal government reviewed those laws and found them to be inconsistent when determining lengths and allowable deviations from permitted combinations. The federal government felt the laws in the 16 states should be identical when dealing with cargo body lengths. Nevada law currently deals with the front of the power unit to the back of the last trailer. Mr. Capurro referred to line 20 which deleted the 105-feet provision of existing law. The federal definition for a triple-trailer combination included the trailers and the space between the trailers. He said the converter gear was housed in the space between the trailers. Federal definition defined the overall length of 95 feet for both triples (28.5-foot trailers) and for long doubles (a 48‑foot and a 42-foot trailer combination). The use of three-axle convention power units was provided for in A.B. 83.
Currently, a truck driver wishing to comply with Nevada’s length law would have to use a cab‑over power unit. A truck with a cab-over power unit has a cutoff front and the driver rides over the steering axle. It is not a comfortable position for drivers. Additionally, a cab‑over power unit is not as stable as a two-axle conventional power unit or a three-axle conventional power unit. A three-axle conventional power unit provides for better braking capacity and comfort than a cab-over power unit. The additional feet added to tractor-trailer combinations using a two-axle conventional power unit or a three-axle conventional power unit, would be offset by added safety and driver comfort.
The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) maintained accident statistics in Nevada. The NDOT had strict rules for longer tractor-trailer combinations on Nevada’s highways. From the accident statistics, it had been determined the longer tractor-trailer combinations, especially triple tractor-trailer combinations, were the safest vehicles on the highway.
The NMTA is asking trucking firms or carriers to be given options for a stable power unit in the front. Productivity would not be affected should A.B. 83 be enacted. The 1993 Congress mandated a freeze on the overall weights of tractor-trailer combination. The permissible weights and lengths were contained in Exhibit E. The states of Utah, Idaho, and Montana adopted the weights and lengths contained in Exhibit E. The state of Arizona indicated the suggested weights and lengths contained in Exhibit E would be allowed through regulation.
Section 5, lines 16 and 17 deleted the maximum fee charged for the permits issued for the longer tractor-trailer combinations. The Department of Motor Vehicle’s Audit Division requested the deletion. Mr. Capurro explained the reason for the deletion. In 2002, a trucking company in a mining operation received 15 overweight tickets during a 5-month period. The trucking company did not have the proper weight permits. The DMV received a complaint about the trucking company, which was investigated by the Audit Division. The Audit Division determined the only administrative penalty which could be imposed would be the weight violation fees for overweight vehicles.
There were two reasons for this determination: 1) the existing language in section 5, lines 16 and 17 and 2 NRS 706 contained no administrative penalties. It was not possible to recover the amount of money which should have been paid by the trucking company if it had been issued the proper weight permit. The deletion of the existing language would provide the DMV with a tool to collect the fines it was due from trucking companies who violated NRS 706.
The last section of the bill repealed NRS484.746 governing alternative limitations for weight and length. Mr. Capurro said there had been instances where a tractor-trailer combination had been cited for being both too long and too heavy. In those instances, courts had dismissed both citations. By repealing NRS484.746, Nevada’s law could not be misconstrued, and Nevada would be recognized as a Formula B state as defined in federal law.
Chairman Shaffer asked Mr. Capurro to provide the committee members with a brief overview of A.B. 83, in his own words. The chairman directed Mr. Capurro to stress those provisions he wanted emphasized. Mr. Capurro agreed to provide the committee members with an overview. Mr. Capurro summarized the bill by saying it adopted a standard with respect to the use of ”Jake Brakes,” and allowed Nevada to conform to the federal definition of longer tractor-trailer combinations. Mr. Capurro said A.B. 83 had been reviewed and approved by the federal government. He said his statements regarding longer tractor-trailer safety could be confirmed by NDOT.
Senator Nolan asked how trucking companies and their employees would be notified of the changes sought by A.B. 83. He said the changes would not affect trucking companies and their employees, as it would offer the option of using the cab-over power unit, a longer two-axle conventional power unit, or a three-axle conventional power unit. The cab-over power units were in short supply as only one company manufactures them.
Mr. Capurro said the American Trucking Association had already been advised of the changes to Nevada law if A.B. 83 were enacted. The NMTA also posted information relative to the change on its Website. The NDOT would adopt regulations if A.B. 83 were passed. Prior to the regulation hearing, the NDOT would send notice of the hearing to all permit holders.
Karen Winchell, Manager, Motor Carrier Section, Department of Motor Vehicles, said she supported A.B. 83.
Michael W. Lawson, Chief, Traffic Administration Division, Nevada Department of Transportation, read from prepared text (Exhibit F).
Chairman Shaffer closed the hearing on A.B. 83 and opened the hearing on A.B. 77.
ASSEMBLY BILL 77 (1st Reprint): Authorizes certain inserts in tail lamps on motorcycles. (BDR 43-220)
Assemblywoman Sharron E. Angle, Assembly District No. 26, said some of her constituents were motorcycle enthusiasts. They asked her to introduce A.B. 77 as it provided additional safety for motorcycle riders.
The bill allowed motorcycle riders to insert a blue dot an inch in diameter in the lens of a motorcycle’s tail lamp. Motorists found it difficult to see a red motorcycle tail lamp in the dark. The color blue is easier to see than the color red. Emergency vehicles are outfitted with blue warning lights due to the increased visibility provided by the blue lights. A blue light can be seen twice as far as a red light. Once a motorcycle tail lamp is fitted with a blue dot, it can be seen for 1000 feet instead of 500 feet.
Assemblywoman Angle said other states had similar legislation. As an example, she cited the states of Minnesota and Washington as states which had enacted blue-dot legislation.
Chairman Shaffer said some of the motorcycles used by law enforcement officers had a rod connected to the motorcycle, and a blue light attached to the end of the rod. Assemblywoman Angle agreed with him, adding the blue light used by law enforcement motorcycle officers flashed. The blue taillight requested in A.B. 83 would be stationary. Chairman Shaffer said the blue light detailed in the bill would be distinctive, as it would be installed in existing tail lamps.
Assemblywoman Angle said the insertion of a blue lens was simple. A motorcycle shop would drill a hole in an existing tail lamp and insert the blue lens. Assemblyman Angle stated the Nevada Highway Patrol, county sheriffs, and city police departments in Nevada did not see a problem with A.B. 83 as it would not interfere with emergency vehicles. She stated due to the increased safety provided by the blue lens, she could see similar legislation being requested for road-crew vehicles.
Senator Carlton asked about the cost of inserting a blue lens in a motorcycle’s tail lamp. Assemblywoman Angle did not know the cost, but noted the action would be permissive, not mandatory. She said it is now possible to buy replacement tail lamps with pre-installed blue dots. Assemblywoman Angle reiterated she requested A.B. 83 on behalf of her motorcycle-riding constituents. Senator Carlton asked whether the bill would remain permissive or become mandatory. Assemblywoman Angle said the bill was purely permissive and it was not her goal to have the bill become mandatory. While many of her constituents wanted the blue dot for safety reasons, other constituents had not expressed an interest in motorcycle safety.
AssemblymanDonald (Don) G. Gustavson, Assembly District No. 30, said he supported A.B. 83. He thanked Chairman Shaffer for allowing testimony on the bill. Assemblyman Gustavson reiterated testimony on the increased safety provided by a motorcycle tail lamp outfitted with a blue dot.
Chairman Shaffer closed the hearing on A.B. 83 and opened the hearing on A.B. 178.
ASSEMBLY BILL 178: Makes various changes concerning registration and titling of motor vehicles and records of Department of Motor Vehicles. (BDR 43‑473)
Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programs Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, said A.B. 178 made several changes to the DMV which would help improve its services.
Section 1 gave the DMV authority to require a person to provide his or her legal name on any document used by the DMV. Presently, the DMV could only require a legal name for a driver’s license or vehicle registration. Section 2 standardized the definition of certificate of title. As no statutory definition existed, the DMV used three interchangeable terms throughout the statutes. The terms were “title,” “certificate of title,” and “certificate of ownership.”
Section 3 allowed the DMV to release personal information relating to a driver’s license or identification card if an authorization for release was presented to the DMV. Mr. Parson said the DMV wanted to add the phrase “except a photograph.” Prior to the implementation of digital photography, the release of photographs had not been an issue for the DMV. The DMV had not retained photographs prior to using digital photographs on drivers’ licenses or identification cards. Digital photography is now an accepted technology, and the DMV requires the authority to manage the release of digital photographs.
Senator Carlton asked for and received clarification regarding which agencies or people with whom the DMV would share information. Mr. Parsons said there were other statutes covering the release of information. The digital photographs would be shared only with law enforcement agencies. Other personal information would be released only to an individual if it concerned him or her, or to a person authorized to receive the information.
Dennis R. Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, explained section 6 of A.B. 178 allowed the DMV to waive penalties or fees when there were issues beyond an individual’s control. The DMV needed the authority to waive those penalties or fees where appropriate. As an example, Mr. Colling said there would be occasions when a bank lost a person’s deposit, causing subsequent transactions not to be processed properly. The DMV did not have the authority to waive the penalties or fees in such instances.
Mr. Parsons said section 12 allowed the DMV to change the numbering sequence for motorcycle license plates from five characters to six characters. The current numbering scheme would be exhausted in December 2003.
Senator Carlton said she wanted to know if section 12 mandated all motorcycles registered in Nevada be issued new license plates. Mr. Parsons said no, adding the current numbering sequence would be added to and enhanced.
Senator Carlton said she wanted to know the meaning of the phrase “or any other provision of the law” contained in section 6 of the bill. Mr. Colling said he would have to ask the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division what the phrase meant.
Senator Carlton directed Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst, to ask the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division for the definition of “or any other provision of the law.”
Chairman Shaffer closed the hearing on A.B. 178 and opened the hearing on A.B. 520.
ASSEMBLY BILL 520: Transfers Program for Education of Motorcycle Riders from Department of Motor Vehicles to Department of Public Safety. (BDR 43-1317)
Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles, said the bill provided for a technical adjustment by transferring the responsibility of the motorcycle safety program from the DMV to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). When the two departments were separated to create two separate agencies, the motorcycle safety program had not been transferred to the DPS which always provided oversight and staffing to the motorcycle safety program.
Senator Carlton asked whether the bill would affect existing staff members. Ms. Mathiesen said there would be no personnel changes should the bill be enacted.
Chairman Shaffer closed the hearing on A.B. 520. He said the bills considered were noncontroversial and due to a lack of full committee, no further actions would be taken on them until April 22, 2003.
There being no further business, Chairman Shaffer adjourned the Senate Committee on Transportation at 2:37 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lee-Ann Keever,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: