►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
D
C
E
F
A
A
Please
remember
that
all
exhibits
were
in
testimony
and
amendments
must
be
submitted
by
noon.
The
day
before
the
committee
meeting
persons
wishing
to
provide
testimony
or
attend
the
meeting
virtually
must
pre-register
on
the
legislature's
website.
The
public
is
strongly
encouraged
to
submit
written
testimony
in
advance
by
emailing.
The
committee
manager
for
commerce
and
labor
zoom
chat
is
reserved
for
committee
business.
Only
members,
please
remember
to
keep
your
camera
on
at
all
times.
This
will
help
ensure
that
we
have
a
quorum
unless
you
are
stepping
away
for
non-committee
related
business
members
and
presenters.
A
Please
remember
to
be
muted
at
all
times,
unmute
yourself
to
speak
and
then
properly
mute
yourself.
When
you
are
done.
Thank
you,
everyone
and
on
today's
agenda
we
have
four
bills
for
hearing.
I
do
want
to
give
everyone
delay
of
the
land
because
we
will
be
taking
the
bills
out
of
order.
I
will
be
starting
with
assembly
bill
391,
I'm
sorry,
I
will
be
starting
with
assembly
bill
375
first
followed
by
assembly
bill
391.
A
Then
we
will
be
hearing
ab290
and
the
last
ab277.
Thank
you
thank
you
for
those
who
are
listening
in
in
case
you
wanted
to.
You
were
here
for
one
of
the
later
meetings.
At
least
you
know
what
time
we
will
be
hearing
those
meetings
with
that.
I
would
like
to
open
the
bill
hearing
on
assembly
bill
375,
and
I
believe
we
have
assembly
member
titus
here
to
present
welcome
to
the
committee
on
commerce
and
labor.
When
you
are
ready,
you
can
vegan.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you
chair
and
members
of
the
assembly,
commerce
and
labor.
I
am
assuming
woman
robin
titus
and
I
represent
district
38,
which
is
all
of
churchill,
county
and
most
of
lyon
county.
I'm
here
today
presenting
assembly
bill
375,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
operation
of
craft
distilleries
state
distilleries
and
wineries.
G
Nevada
is
home
to
breweries,
wineries
and
distilleries
that
have
brought
home,
coveted
spirit
awards.
There
are
numerous
breweries
essential,
creating
our
artisanal
and
craft
brews
in
each
region
of
nevada.
Wineries
in
nevada
are
located
throughout
the
state,
including
pahrump
and
fallon,
producing
high
quality
estate
bottled
vino.
We
are
home
to
two
of
the
united
states
three
estate
distilleries.
G
G
Recent
changes
to
nevada
law
have
made
the
prospect
of
opening
and
operating
a
winery
in
nevada
more
attractive,
for
example,
in
2015,
this
legislative
body
made
many
changes
to
nevada's
winery
laws
by
creating
new
opportunities
for
wineries
to
operate
in
the
state.
While
there
were
no
changes
to
the
licensing
or
permitting
requirements
of
a
winery,
it
did
change
the
scope
of
a
wineries,
permitted
operation.
G
Even
with
these
changes,
vintners
brewers
and
distillers
continue
to
face
challenges
which
have
been
exasperated
by
this
recent
pandemic.
For
instance,
transporting
alcohol
between
tasting
room
locations
or
breweries
and
wineries
must
sometimes
be
handled
by
a
distributor
which
increases
the
cost
of
the
vintners
and
brewers,
and
retail
selling
of
product
products
can
have
our
businesses
wanting
to
expand
throughout
this
great
state
of
nevada
members.
I
have
distributed
a
copy
of
an
amendment
that
we're
introducing
at
this
time.
G
You
should
all
have
received
the
written
copy
and
it
should
be
up
on
nellis
if
it's
not,
but
you
should
hopefully
have
all
in
your
office
and
at
this
time
madam
chair,
I'm
going
to
turn
the
hearing
over
or
the
presentation
over
to
co-presenter
tim
burke,
who
will
go
over
the
bill
and
its
amendment,
and
I
will
be
here
to
answer
any
further
questions.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
tim
burke,
a
resident
and
businessman
from
parom
I've
been
a
resident
of
nevada
for
nearly
60
years.
I
grew
up
in
the
small
rural
community
of
dayton
near
carson
city.
My
passion
for
the
wine
industry
began
in
the
early
1980s
after
visiting
napa
california,
I
was
able
to
pursue
my
passion,
beginning
in
2009
when
I
started
attending
classes
at
uc
davis.
I
have
since
gone
on
to
earn
a
certificate
in
viticulture.
H
H
H
It
was
authorized
as
an
alternating
proprietorship
model
so
that
separate
winery
companies
can
operate
in
one
building.
This
would
allow
a
similar
model
for
an
estate,
crafter,
distillery
and
winery
to
do
the
same
thing.
Technically,
once
we
looked
at
the
language,
it
would
be
an
alternating
premise,
not
a
proprietorship.
H
H
H
And
permitted
non-contiguous
location
or
a
licensed
custom
crush
facility,
beginning
october
1st
2025,
the
location
of
which
a
winery
may
produce
bottled
blend
or
age.
Wine
will
no
longer
be
restricted,
for
example,
because
of
the
restrictions
implemented
by
cobit
19
pandemic.
Many
wineries
have
had
added
restaurants
and
related
equipment
to
their
winery,
so
their
tasting
rooms
could
be
open.
In
many
instances
a
wineries
production
space
was
converted
to
a
restaurant
and
dining
area
also
because
of
social
distancing
requirements.
H
Production
areas
have
been
used
to
maintain
social
distancing
for
customers,
eliminating
that
space
from
production,
a
non-contiguous
production
area
would
allow
wineries
to
continue
to
use
the
converted
production
space
as
a
restaurant
and
maintain
social
distancing.
It
would
also
allow
us
to
maintain
those
additional
tax
revenues
and
keep
those
restaurant
employees
working
ab
375
wineries
licensed
after
october.
1St
2015
will
be
allowed
to
serve
by
the
glass
on
premise:
any
alcohol
beverage
until
september
30th
2025.
H
Section
three
adds
that
winery
must
be
licensed
by
the
state
of
nevada
and
defines
custom
crush.
Additionally,
we
restore
language
to
allow
winery
to
import
from
outside
of
the
state
and
requires
the
same
percentage,
25
or
more
of
honey
that
must
be
produced
in
the
state,
as
other
wines,
that
particular
section
regarding
honey
is
important
to
our
meat
and
cider
operations
that
are
operate
as
wineries,
because
they
do
not
use
grapes,
they
use
honey
to
produce
their
products.
H
A
I
Okay,
good,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
I
had
concerns
about
the
the
custom
crush,
but
I
see
that
it's
is
defined
in
the
amendment
so
as
and
if
I'm
reading
this
correctly,
this
would
be
strictly
nevada
grapes
they
would
not
be
bringing
in
grapes
or
juice
from
outside
the
state.
Is
that
correct.
I
Okay,
so
I
that
that
eliminates
one
of
the
the
issues
that
I
saw
in
in
the
bill.
I
It
was
a
very
long
four
hour
hearing
former
assemblyman
cressen
hardy
did
a
great
job
in
working
on
this
bill
and
and
so
did
assemblyman
oscarson.
I
There
was
an
issue
that
they
were
really
trying
to
fix
and
it
seems
every
session
now
we're
coming
back
to
get
a
little
bit
more
and
a
little
bit
more,
and
that
was
one
of
the
original
concerns
that
we
had
in
2015
that
this
was
going
to
grow
into
something
that
was
beyond
a
winery
or
distillery,
actually
doing
the
samples
on
on
on
site
being
able
to
let
people
taste
it
on
site,
and
now
I
see
that
they
want
to
serve
full
alcohol.
I
Basically,
you
want
to
turn
these
wineries
into
a
bar
and
I
think
nevada
has
a
lot
of
bars.
So
I
guess
I
really
want
to
understand
what
is
the
issue
you're
really
trying
to
fix
here
it.
It
seems
as
though
you're
trying
to
get
out
of
the
winery
distillery
boutique
niche
that
we
sort
of
set
up
for
you
and
become
full-fledged
bars.
G
Mr
I'll
start
with
I'll
start,
if
I
might
found
a
vice
chair.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
It
gave
a
little
oversight
for
the
main
things
that
this
bill
does.
As
you
know,
over
sessions
we
see
what
a
bill
does
and
then
we
come
back
frequently
to
add
to
it
and
fix
it.
We've
spent
a
lot
of
that
time
over
the
years
adjusting
things
in
our
bills.
G
Once
we
have
experience
with
it,
one
of
the
first
things
is,
it
adds
mead
to
it,
which
we
didn't
identify
in
the
past,
which
is
certainly
a
custom
drink
and
need,
by
definition,
is
when
you
use
a
honey.
G
So
that's
one
number
two,
as
mr
burke
pointed
out,
especially
as
you
age,
these
wines
that
you
are
making
here
in
nevada
that
that
it
may
take
several
years
and
with
a
limited
number
of
cases
of
wine
that
you
may
have
on
your
facility,
it
really
limits
the
type
of
product
that
you
might
have
because,
as
you're
aging,
the
the
great
reds
that
you
may
have-
and
you
take
several
years
to
age
them-
you're
limited
producing
any
of
the
other
ones.
G
That
maybe
only
require
a
year
in
the
in
the
in
the
case
or
the
keg
or
whatever
so
you're,
limiting
them
what
you
can
produce
and
how
long
you
can
have
them.
The
other
thing
is
the
the
flexibility
of
transport
between
their
units,
and
he
he
described
that
briefly
in
his
testimony.
G
The
final
thing,
as
far
as
allowing
any
you're
not
allowed
to
sell
that
product,
if
you're
at
the
tasting
room
there
may
be
folks
that
would
prefer
some
other
boutique
beers
or
something
else
and
then
allow
them
to
serve
them
by
the
glass
would
be
appropriate
to
again
it's
an
enterprise
and
it's
a
business,
and
certainly
we
have
to
be
flexible
with
that,
and
with
that,
mr
burke,
do
you
have
anything
else
to
add
to
vice
chair
carlton's
comments?
No.
H
It's
an
evolving
industry.
We
have
very
few
wineries
in
nevada.
We
have
the
fewest
in
the
entire
west,
one
of
the
fewest
numbers
of
wineries
in
in
the
nation
for
that
matter,
as
we
have
grown
as
wineries
come
on,
we
identify
certain
areas
that
are
not
major
changes,
but
are
small
changes
that
will
allow
us
to
improve
our
business
model
be
profitable.
H
None
of
us
are
big
corporations.
We
are
businesses
that
are
you
know,
individuals
that
have
mortgaged
our
homes
and
to
get
these
businesses
going
so
revenue
is,
is
important.
Winery
equipment
is
very
expensive,
so
some
additional
revenue
streams
are
always
helpful
for
us.
Occasionally
we
do
a
special
event,
whether
it's
a
meeting
or
or
something
that
we
find
it
hard
to
believe.
But
not
everybody
wants
to
drink
wine
all
the
time.
Maybe
they
want
a
glass
of
beer
or
something
like
that,
and
that's
really
the
reason
for
that.
H
I
And,
and
if
I'm
a
madam
chair,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
understand
this
correctly,
so
we've
always
had
a
delineation.
I
mean
it's
a
three-tier
system
and
it's
that
way
for
a
reason,
and
we've
always
made
sure
that
the
licensing
went
along
with
the
actual
function
and
in
reading
this
I
believe
the
wineries
also
want
to
be
a
distillery,
but
they
only
want
to
have
one
license.
They
don't
want
to
be
licensed
as
a
winery
and
then
licensed
as
a
distillery.
I
I
I
have
have
some
concerns
about
that.
We
we've
done
it
that
way
for
a
reason,
so
maybe
my
next
set
of
questions
would
probably
be
for
tax
rather
than
for
the
proponents
of
the
bill
to
make
sure
that
we
can
address
this.
It
just
seems,
like
you
know,
when
we
did
it
the
first
time
it
was
very
limited,
and
now
it's
it.
It's
getting
a
little
bit
bigger
than
what
I
think
the
intent
actually
was
as
far
as
a
family-owned,
winery
be
or
family-owned
distillery.
I
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
assemblywoman
and
mr
burke
for
your
presentation.
I'm
looking
at
section
3
page
6
line
43
in
the
strike
out
of
the
1000
cases
to
the
2000
cases.
B
If
you
could
just
let
us
know
how
many
people
are
in
that
space
now
that
are
doing
the
1000
cases
and
what
what
are
you
know
if
we
go
to
the
2000
cases?
How
many
folk
will
be
participating
in
that?
Do
they
have
capability
doing
that?
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
that
means
practically
through
through
a
business
lens
and
who
who's
participating
in
that
and
who's
going
to
take
advantage
of
it.
G
We
also
have
industry
on
the
on
the
line
if
needed,
but
mr
burke.
H
H
More
vines
are
going
in
the
ground.
I
know
here
in
trump
there's
another
3
500
vines
being
planted
this
year,
but
again
we're
four
years
out
or
so
before.
Those
vines
are
actually
producing
grapes
that
we
can
use
and
for
nevada
grapes.
H
Several
of
the
wineries
are
bumping
up
against
that
cap.
Now
they
are
actively
harvesting
nevada,
grapes.
I'm
sure
we're
all
aware
of
the
frost
that
took
place
in
june
last
year
in
northern
nevada,
so
those
every
single
grape
and
certain
vineyards
up
there,
including
including
one
with
over
6500
vines,
were
lost
so
that
fruit
wasn't
available.
H
So
without
that
fruit
available
there's
there's
very
little.
That
can
be
done
from
a
winery
standpoint.
We
can't
we
can't
pull
it
through
fruit
from
anywhere
else
have
it
be
in
the
gutter,
grate
and
so
increasing
the
cap
and
we're
very
cognizant
of
the
three
chair
system
and
working
within
that
system
going
to
2000.
H
A
couple
of
wineries
will
probably
be
on
projection
for
that
in
this
coming
year,
it's
difficult
to
tell
because
of
covid,
which
skews
all
of
our
numbers
right
now
but
and
then
hopefully,
grapes
will
become
available
and
we
won't
have
a
late
frost
in
june,
which
will
allow
some
of
those
nevada
wineries
to
be
able
to
harvest
those
nevada,
grapes.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you,
mr
burke,
for
that,
so
just
to
make
sure
that
I
I
took
that
correctly
right
now.
We
we
think
that
there's,
maybe
a
couple
of
wineries
that
could
potentially
utilize
a
2000
case
number.
Should
we
go
to
that
and
and
then
even
that,
it's
that
we're
not
100
sure
on
that,
because
we
obviously
have
the
concern
that
the
season
temperature
x,
y
and
z
will
play
into
a
factor.
H
H
We
also
don't
know
post
covid
what
are
what
our
sales
are
going
to
be
and
how
the
public's
going
to
respond
in
terms
of
returning
back
to
wineries.
We
hope
we
are,
of
course,
hoping
that
we
are
pushing
up
those
limits,
because
that
means
more
jobs
for
this
industry
and
more
jobs
in
the
states
and
more
tax
revenue
for
the
states,
and
those
are
all
things
that
we
we
want
to
have
happen.
A
Thank
you,
assemblymember
flores
and
I'm
gonna
just
jump
in
really
quick,
because
I
do
have
a
question
and
mr
burke,
if
you
would
do
me
a
favor
and
just
identify
yourself
for
the
record
when,
when
you're
answering
questions,
it
just
helps
with
our
committee
secretary
as
she's
taking
the
minutes.
A
I
I've
been
on
this
committee
since
I've
been
at
the
legislature-
and
I
recall
these
bills
coming
forth
every
session,
and
so
I
just
have
a
quick
question:
you're
asking
to
increase
to
2
000
cases.
Did
we
increase
that
last
session
as
well
or
is
this
I
mean
is?
Has
it
always
been
a
thousand
cases
or
was
that
an
increase?
And
now
this
is
another
increase.
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
this
presentation
and
thank
you
for
or
answering
these
questions,
I'm
just
looking
at
sort
of
a
parity
and
whether
opening
up
for
wineries
to
serve
any
alcoholic
beverage
then
also
means
that
that
allows
craft
breweries
to
open
up
and
serve
any
alcoholic
beverage
by
the
glass.
I
just
is
that
kind
of
where
this
is
going.
G
You
could
ask
thank
you
seminole
woman
titus
here
you,
you
can
ask
legal
on
that,
but
the
way
this
is
under
this
statute
under
the
wineries-
and
I
do
not
know
that
if
it
would
also
pertain
to
craft
breweries.
H
J
I
thank
you
so
much
chair
for
the
indulgence
to
ask
a
question.
First
of
all,
I
I
I'll
just
say
for
the
record:
I
love
need,
I
was
introduced
to
it
in
the
past
year
and
we
have
a
location
in
reno
that
I
think
I
would
imagine
would
be
really
excited
about
this
legislation,
and
one
of
the
challenges
is
if
we
were
to
go
out
with
another
couple.
J
I
know
that
three
of
us
like
mead,
but
one
of
them
doesn't,
and
they
just
want
to
be
able
to
order
a
beer,
so
I
think
that
they,
they
really
appreciate
that
that'll
make
our.
When
we're
you
know
back
out
in
the
open
again
more
that'll
make
date
nights
fun.
So
my
question,
though,
in
regards
to
this
is
it
allows
to
be
able
to
serve
any
alcoholic
beverage.
Is
there
any
other
requirements
around
food
that
are
attached
to
this,
or
is
that
a
totally
is
that
totally
separate?
G
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
sam
cross
committee
council.
There's
no
requirements
for
food
set
forth
in
the
in
the
section
which
this
would
affect.
So
to
answer
your
question.
No
there's
no
requirement
for
food.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
opportunity
to
ask
question,
so
I
just
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
section.
Five.
F
And
you
kind
of
briefly
touched
on
this:
there's
different,
effective
dates
or
when
you
know
when
they
become
effective
or
when
they
expire.
So
could
you
maybe
just
tell
me
why
they're
different.
G
H
Yes,
back
in
2000
dembert
for
the
record
in
2015,
when
the
nrs
was
changed
to
allow
the
wineries
in
tasting
rooms
in
clarke
county
in
washoe
county.
There
were
wineries
that
were
grandfathered
prior
to
any
winery
license
prior
to
2015.
H
It
had
the
ability
to
sell
wine
by
the
glass
to
or
other
alcohols
by
the
glass
to
have
an
additional
tasting
room.
There
was
no
cap
requirement
on
those
wineries
that
were
already
previously
in
business
prior
to
the
change
in
statute
in
2015.
post
change
in
statute.
C
Okay,
thank
you
so
someone
that
has
very
limited
knowledge
about
wine
in
general.
So
this
is
a
really
good
learning
experience
for.
H
Jim
burke,
yes,
well,
there
is
no
formal
designation
within
the
state
for
an
estate
winery
and
a
state
distillery
means
that
you
are
in
control
of
the
grains
that
you
use
that.
H
I'm
not
actually
sure
what
the
craft
distillery
definition
is,
but
for
wineries,
it's
a
fairly
broad
and
generic
term
and
in
an
ideal
situation,
there's
three
components
to
wineries:
there's
vineyards,
there's
the
wine
production
and
then
there's
the
winery
tasting
room
in
an
ideal
environment,
a
wineries
all
three.
H
But
often
it's
not
practical.
I
mean
there
are
private
vineyards
in
the
state
of
nevada
that
we
harvest
there's
several
wine
production
facilities,
not
here
in
the
state,
but
in
other
states,
and
then
there
are
the
wine
tasting
rooms
so
that,
but
all
of
those
components
eventually
come
together
as
a
winery.
E
A
Thank
you,
you're
welcome,
assemblymember
hardy.
We
have
assembly
member
kasamine.
C
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
presenters.
I
do
have
to
reiterate.
I
have
a
girlfriend
that
loves
to
go
to
wineries
and
cannot
get
her
husband
to
go
with
her,
because
he
will
only
drink
vodka,
and
so
she
might
be
able
to
get
him
to
go
now
and
I
don't
think
we'll
see
people
flocking
to
wineries
that
like
to
drink
spirits,
but
I
think
it'll
accommodate
those
that
do
show
up
with
the
rest
of
us
that,
like
wine,
my
question
is
just
a
general
broad
one.
H
Well,
jim
burke,
for
the
record,
and
we
I
don't
know
that
we're
the
lowest
but
we're
one
of
the
lowest
we're,
certainly
the
lowest
on
the
western
united
states
in
terms
of
wineries.
H
Utah
has
more
wineries
than
we
do,
but
it's
it's
probably
a
combination,
but
one
of
the
biggest
drawbacks
has
been
the
fact
that
a
great
deal
of
our
state
of
nevada,
as
we
all
know,
is
belongs
to
blm
or
is
controlled
by
blm.
There
aren't
that
many
great
agricultural
producing
areas
within
the
state,
wine,
grapes
and
university
of
nevada
did
a
study
on
this
wine.
Grapes
are
actually
a
a
better
agricultural
product
in
terms
of
use
of
water
than
alfalfa.
H
But
again
it's
it's.
It's
a
generational
type
of
product,
so
people
talk
about
him
for
they
talk
about
marijuana,
they're.
Looking
for
a
quick
turn,
you
plan
to
put
a
vine
in
the
ground
and
take
several
years,
so
it
takes
a
long
time
to
develop
that
infrastructure.
First,
convince
people
to
put
vines
in
the
ground
and
then
for
the
vines
themselves
to
mature
and
there's
not
a
lot
of
knowledge
here
either
we're
we're
all
learning
as
we
go,
there's
not
a
good
playbook
for
nevada's
for
wineries
to
start
up
in
nevada.
H
K
You,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
the
presentation
and
I
understand
that
we
need
to
make
our
winery
businesses
a
little
more
profitable,
but
my
concern
is
as
follow-up
with
vice
chair.
Carlton
is,
and
vc
or
assembly
woman.
Oh,
my
god.
I
forgot
her
I'm
sorry
anyway.
So
my
question
is:
where
are
you
going
to
get
this
alcohol
and
is
it
going
to
be
limited
to
certain
drinks
because
again
it
says
served
by
the
glass
on
its
premise,
any
alcoholic
beverage.
K
H
Tim
burke
for
the
record:
well,
we're
not
sure
what
other
wineries
may
want
to
do
in
terms
of
mixed
drinks.
Any
alcohol
that
we
would
receive
into
our
our
wineries
would
be
through
the
three-tiered
system
and
through
our
distributors,.
H
Where
again
it's
it's
never
going
to
be
a
wineries
main
part
of
their
business.
It
just
it
just
gives
them
an
additional
option.
They
would
have
to
have
whatever
local
liquor
licenses
are
required
in
order
to
or
any
alcohol
of
any
type,
so
they
would
have
to
follow,
certainly
their
local
regulations.
First.
A
K
Please
doesn't
legal
major
so
and
just
because
being
in
the
business,
you
do
have
to
take
your
tam
cards
and
your
alcohol
awareness
cards
and
all
the
other
classes
to
serve
alcohol
as
well.
As
you
know,
just
safe,
surf
classes
and
stuff
like
that.
Are
these
places
going
to
follow
those
regulations
as
well.
H
Tim
burke
for
the
record,
it's
a
county
to
county
requirement.
Yes,
but
most
counties
absolutely
require
that
any
member,
for
example
here
in
nike
county
anyone
that
pours
must
can
go
through
and
acquire
a
sheriff's
card
and
have
a
background
check
done
prior
to
doing
that.
I
know
in
clark
county.
A
Okay-
and
I
do
have
a
couple
of
questions
as
well-
and
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to
this,
but
I
do
want
to
ask
just
to
clarify
on
the
record
the
language
word
says:
another
winery
can
transport
wine
between
two
or
more
more
wineries
which
have
been
issued
a
winemaker's
license?
Is
that
in
any
way,
I'm
stepping
on
this
on
in
the
lanes
of
distributors.
H
Jim
burke,
for
the
record,
we
don't
think
so.
We
are
in
the
there's.
There's
no
tax
involved.
That
and
any
bond
on
transfer
must
be
that
that
paperwork
has
to
be
done
and
submitted
to
the
ttb
and
it's
part
of
our
records
that
we
submit
to
taxation
every
month.
So
it's
it's!
There
is
a
trail
for
that.
A
H
That,
actually
it
can
be
currently
it
can
be
any
trucking
company,
that's
licensed
to
transport
alcohol.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
distributor.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
brook,
and
then
my
last
question.
So
I
was
reading
that
there's
a
there's
quite
a
bit
of
different
criteria
for
wine.
That's
made
from
25
of
grapes
grown
in
the
state
or
more
than
25
of
the
grapes
grown
in
the
state
or
less
than
25
of
the
greats
growing
in
the
state,
and
you
talked
about
creating
jobs,
and
now,
this
being
you
know,
a
bill
that
could
potentially
create
drops
here
in
our
state.
A
H
Well,
we're
currently
limited
to
a
thousand
cases,
no
matter
where
the
grapes
are
pulled
in
from
if
we,
if
that
was
increased
to
2000,
and
we
were
able
to
harvest
enough
nevada
grapes
to
have
25
percent.
H
A
Okay-
and
that
leads
me
to
my
next
question-
so
you
just
said
that
so,
if
I'm
reading
it,
the
language
says
if
25
or
more
of
the
wine
produced,
blended
or
aged
from
fruit
grown
in
the
state
that
that
is
limited
to
a
thousand
cases,
as
is
wine,
if
less
than
25
of
the
wine
produced
is
also
limited
to
a
thousand
cases,
so
you're
only
seeking
to
increase
the
number
of
cases
sold
for
wine,
that's
made
with
more
grapes
brought
in
from
out
of
state.
Why
aren't
we
doing
the
reverse?
A
Why
aren't
we
increasing
the
number
of
cases
sold
for
grapes
that
are
growing
in
the
state
versus
grapes
that
are
growing
out
of
the
state,
because
the
more
grapes
we
can
produce
in
the
state,
the
more
jobs
that
would
be
created?
But
I
don't
see
us
increasing
the
number
of
cases
that
you're
allowed
to
sell
for
grapes
growing
in
the
state.
We're
only
increasing
it
for
the
grapes
growing
out
of
the
state.
H
H
There
are
not
enough
grapes
to
do
that,
so
why
grapes
or
vineyards
are
being
planted,
why
the
vineyards
are
being
matured,
allowing
wineries
to
increase
their
numbers
and
bring
in
grapes
that
they
have
to
source,
because
there
simply
aren't
enough
nevada
grapes
to
do
that.
Right
now.
Allows
us
to
have
capital
to
put
in
vineyards.
To
put
in
a
vineyard
is
a
twenty
five
thousand
fifty
thousand
dollar
endeavor
per
acre
and
based
on
current
numbers
plus
base
staff
plus
have
a
building
open
plus
do
everything
else.
A
Thank
you,
mr
burke,
and
I
appreciate
that
I
just
think
we
have
to
find
a
mechanism
in
here
or
build
a
mechanism
in
here
that
would
encourage
people
to
want
to
plant
and
grow
nevada
grapes,
because
if
we
leave
it
on
a
thousand
and
we
increase
the
cases
that
you
could
produce
and
sell
for
out-of-state
grapes
and
they're
only
going
to
be
encouraged
to
buy
out-of-state
grapes,
like
you
said
you
know,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
expenses
paying
staff
and
stuff,
but
that's
ultimately
we
want
them
to
get.
A
We
want
where
we
want
to
get
them
right.
I
mean
I
completely
agree
with
you.
We
want
to
be
100
nevada,
grapes.
That
would
be
wonderful.
I
think
we
have
to
have
a
mechanism
built
in
that
would
encourage
people
to
go
that
route.
You
know
maybe
allowing
them
to
produce
more
cases
if
they
are
more
than
25.
You
know,
nevada
grapes
grow
and
then
there's
an
incentive
there
to
want
to
plant
and
plant
more
grapes
in
the
state.
H
So
there's
a
mechanism
in
california,
where
they
actually
give
incentives
to
vineyards
through
tax
incentives
and
those
types
of
things
to
encourage
the
agricultural
production
of
grapevines,
and
that's
something
that
we
don't
have
in
place
here
in
the
state.
But
there's
really
nothing
in
the
state
that
encourages
vineyard
owners
themselves.
They
may
not
want
to
make
wine.
H
A
Thank
you,
mr
brooke.
I
appreciate
that.
If
you
have
that
field
information
you
could
share.
That
would
be
great.
H
A
E
C
C
C
To
weather
the
situations
where,
when
we
do
have
the
late
frost
and
it
destroys
our
crops,
we
still
have
inventory
or
the
ability
to
produce
and
and
save
and
keep
going
for
the
following
year.
I,
though,
I'm
not
even
near
a
thousand
cases,
we've
just
started
up,
so
I'm
just
looking
at
future
aspects
of
it
and
then
the
other
thing
that
was
of
real
interest
is
also
the
ability
to
serve
like
they
said
like
for
us,
a
typical
beer.
C
You
know
we
get
a
lot
of
people
out
that
have
the
wine
that
they
again
they
don't
bring
a
friend
or
a
spouse
or
partner,
and
they
would
just
like
a
coors
light.
So
it's
not
something
that
I
want
to
a
bar
scene
at
all.
That's
absolutely
not
what
I'm
into,
but
it
is
nice
to
be
able
to
offer
someone
something
more
than
a
glass
of
water.
While
there
are
friendships
wine
and
that's
all
I
have
to
contribute
to
this.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
broadcasting.
Can
we
move
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition.
E
E
E
D
D
My
my
concern
with
the
bill
and
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
good
in
it
that
been
discussed
already,
is
the
requirement
to
have
25
nevada
grown
fruit
with
to
increase
the
production
limit
in
northern
nevada.
The
issue
is
the
the
lack
of
fruit
in
northern
nevada
and
the
climate's
been
brought
up,
and
I
would
love
to
be
able
to
purchase
all
the
fruit.
D
I'm
one
of
the
wineries,
that's
pushing
the
limit
right
now
by
the
way,
and
I
would
love
to
be
able
to
purchase
fruit
near
reno
to
satisfy
that
their
requirement.
You
know
they're
they're,
about
20
vineyards
around
town
tim
mentioned
the
number
of
vines,
that's
that
would
produce
about
3
000
cases
and
that
would
need
to
be
spread
around
probably
about
six
or
seven
vineyards
or
wineries
in
northern
nevada.
He
also
mentioned
the
frost
that
killed
all
the
fruit
at
most
the
vineyards
in
northern
nevada
this
year.
D
D
Basically,
a
brewery
can
produce
40
000
barrels
a
year
with
a
value
of
about
16
million
dollars
and
craft
distilleries
can
produce
10
000
cases
at
a
value
of
about
3
million
dollars
a
year
again,
that's
just
using
publicly
available
sale
prices
and
current
limits,
wineries
at
less
than
a
thousand
cases
or
a
thousand
cases
or
less
have
a
value
of
about
300
annual
value
about
300
000,
which
is
very
difficult
to
run
a
business
on
it's
less
than
two
percent
of
the
value
of
the
the
beer
breweries
can
produce
in
less
than
about
one
percent
of
the
value
of
the
spirits
that
distillers
can
produce.
D
So
so,
even
with
the
proposed
increase
to
2000
cases,
wineries
would
be
would
be.
You
know
again
well
below
even
five
percent
of
what
the
other
alcohol
producers
can
can
produce,
and,
and
so
the
question
I
pose
is:
is
it
is
unreasonable
for
wineries
to
be
able
to
produce
you
know
five
or
ten
percent,
even
five
or
ten
percent
of
what
breweries
and
craft
distilleries
can
produce?
D
I
think
this.
This
addresses
a
couple
of
the
questions
that
they
came
up
by
the
the
committee
members
during
the
discussion.
This
farm
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
broadcasting.
Let's
move
into
those
wishing
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position
before
we
go
to
the
telephone
line
broadcasting.
I
do
know
that
we
had
one
of
our
presenters
on
another
bill
here
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position
on
ab375
and
he's
on
video.
So
I
would
like
to
first
go
to
mr
alfredo
alonso
for
the
new
in
the
neutral
position.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
alfredo
alonso,
with
the
law
firm
of
louis
roca
today
on
behalf
of
southern
glazer
wine
and
spirits,
and
the
nevada
bureau,
setters
association
and,
and
just
so,
I
can
clarify
why
we
are
where
we
are
today
when,
when
the
bill
that
passed,
I
believe
it
was
2015
at
the
time
we
had
newspaper
articles
all
over
the
place
talking
about
growing
grapes.
L
It
was
about
turning
nevada
into
eastern
washington
and
that
somehow
the
system
was
keeping
these
folks
out,
which
was
not
the
case.
The
only
difference
at
the
time
was
that
there
was
a
bill
that
had
been
passed
10
years
earlier
to
allow
for
economic
development
in
the
rural
counties,
so
that
allowed
for
tasting
rooms,
and
you
could
still
have
a
winery
in
the
other
counties.
You
just
couldn't
have
a
tasting
room,
so
this
is
all
about
the
tasting
room,
so
we
we've.
You
know.
L
Years
later,
we've
we've
been
trying
to
work
with
with
some
of
the
folks
that
are
before
you
today.
I
think
I
think
mr
burke
is
is
is
obviously
a
fine
person.
He
is.
He
is
trying
to
make
a
go
in
a
very
difficult
and
very
competitive
world,
so
I
I
applaud
him
for
that.
L
Where,
where
we
have
concerns
is
again-
and
you
heard
you
heard
one
individual
discuss
it-
where
it
isn't
about
growing
grapes-
it
isn't
about
creating
a
winery
in
the
in
the
sense
of
what
a
winery
is.
It's
about
flooding
the
market
with
other
people's
grapes
and
other
people's
juice
and
and
what's
really
important
here
is
again.
I
think
the
amendment
covers
most
of
our
concerns
and
that's
why
I'm
in
the
neutral
right
now.
L
The
amendment
basically
makes
it
certain
that
we're
talking
about
nevada,
wineries,
using
other
nevada,
wineries
with
respect
to
bringing
grapes
or
juice
or
perhaps
a
finished
product
in
one
of
the
concerns
that
was
brought
up
was
hey.
We
want
to
buy
grapes
out
of
amargosa
valley
in
in
southern
nevada,
but
we
can't
transport
it
because
if
we
try
to
transport
it'll
go
back,
so
we
understand
that
that
makes
perfect
sense.
L
So
if
they
want
to
use
a
a
custom
crush
facility,
I.e
another
winery,
that's
located
in
that
area,
I
think
that's
perfectly
reasonable
and
I
think
that
makes
perfect
sense
in
allowing
them
to
get
closer
that
25
and
it's
important
to
know
that
at
25
you
don't
have
limitations,
so
the
whole
point
was
and
again
consistent
with
what
the
proponents
had
pushed
and
and
and
thought
was
important.
You
know
five
years
ago
and
that's
the
grow.
Nevada
grapes
like,
like
you
see
in
every
winery
and
most
wineries
throughout
the
country.
L
Arizona,
had
some
issues
similar
to
this,
where
many
of
these
wineries
were
coming
into
the
into
the
state
unfettered,
they
weren't
arizona,
wineries.
They
had
no
intention
of
growing
nevada
or
excuse
me,
arizona,
grapes
and
so
they've
had
to
curb
that
issue
back
it's
the
integrity
of
the
system,
it's
an
integrity
of
the
wineries
and
what
tim
and
others
are
trying
to
do,
I
think
is,
is
absolutely
the
right
thing.
L
So
what
what
you've
seen
in
the
amendment
that
I
that
that
was
proposed,
I
think,
covers
most
of
the
concerns
we
had
striking
out
the
out-of-state
crust
crush
facilities.
Again,
if
you
can
buy
california
grapes
and
even
have
them
crushed
and
bottled
in
california,
then
I'm
not
sure
you're,
a
nevada,
winery
anymore.
I
think
you're
a
bar,
and
so
I
think
that
was
an
important
piece
of
that.
So
we
are
we're
supportive
of
their
efforts
to
continue
to
grow
more
grapes
and
I'd
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions.
L
I
I
think
I
think
again
what
tim
and
and
bill
lawken
before
him
and
others
have
been
trying
to
do
is
yeah.
I
think
it's
it's
amazing
and
I
hope
they
they
have
the
best
of
luck
and
and
make
a
lot
of
wine
in
the
years
to
come.
L
That's
correct:
that's
how
we've
always
read
it!
That's
how
the
bill
was
first
presented
and
and
passed
in
in
2015.
L
It's
also
really
important
to
note
that
three
quarters
of
the
wineries,
more
than
three
quarters
of
the
wineries
in
this
country
are
under
5
000
cases,
so
we're
talking
about
the
vast
majority
of
of
wineries
are
closer
to
the
one
to
two
thousand
cases,
the
limits
that
we're
even
talking
about
them
bringing
in
grapes.
So
the
idea
that
this
is
a
small
amount
is
just
simply
nonsensical.
L
The
the
the
thing
we're
trying
to
avoid
is
again
a
large
winery,
a
large
producer,
and
we've
had
these
issues
before
with
with
rectifiers
in
the
statute
that
this
body
has
had
to
come
back
and
define,
and
that
is
someone
that
brings
in
pre-fermented
or
or
or
fermented
juice
bottled,
and
then
you
call
it
a
nevada,
winery
or
in
nevada.
Anything
for
that
matter.
I
think
you
have
to
be
really
careful
with
that.
L
We're
very
limited
our
resources
at
the
department
of
taxation,
our
enforcement,
I
mean
they
do
the
best
they
can
in
their
circumstances,
but
we're
limited
and
and
because
of
that
it
is
very
difficult
to
to
know
whether
taxes
are
being
paid,
especially
when
you're,
basically
shipping
in
product
from
another
another
state.
So
I
I
think
what
the
the
minority
leader
is
trying
to
do
here
with
the
amendment
and
and
overall,
I
think,
helps
the
industry
without
going
too
far.
A
E
E
M
A
A
Thank
you
broadcasting.
Can
we
check
to
see
if
there's
anyone
else
on
the
line
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position.
G
Yes,
I
would
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
all
for
your
great
questions.
I
would
just
like
to
point
out
and
for
clarity
that,
mr,
as
mr
alonzo
said
just
for
your
question,
mr
madam
chair
is
that
they
can
produce
unlimited
number
of
cases
now,
if
it's
nevada
grapes.
So,
but
this
purpose
of
putting
that
ceiling
on
there
is
as
he
addressed.
We
didn't
want
wineries
coming
in
people,
just
california,
companies
coming
to
nevada.
We
really
want
to
promote
nevada
businesses.
G
Also,
again,
we
do
want
to
promote
nevada
businesses,
so
the
reality
is
here
is
that
we
should
be
supportive
of
whatever
we
can
do
to
help
true
nevada
businesses
grow
and
not
not
only
what
has
always
been
a
relatively
difficult
world,
but
even
more
so
in
current
economic
standards.
So
thank
you
all,
for
your
great
questions
hope
to
share
a
glass
of
wine
with
all
of
you
at
some
point
in
time,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
hearing
this
bill.
A
Thank
you,
dr
titus.
Okay,
with
that,
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
375.
next
bill
on
our
agenda
is
assembly
bill
391.
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
391
and
I
believe
we
have
assembly
member
anderson
here
to
present
the
bill.
Welcome
to
the
committee
on
commerce
and
labor
when
you're
ready
assembly
member
anderson,
you
can
begin.
C
Thank
you
and
good
afternoon,
chair
herrgy
vice
chair
carlton
and
members
of
the
commerce
and
labor
committee.
My
name
is
nasa
anderson.
It
is
my
honor
to
represent
assembly.
District
30.
ab391
includes
very,
very
extensive,
cleanup
language.
That's
coming
from
the
nevada
board
of
dispensing
opticians
the
goal
over
the
last
year,
they've
been
trying
to
look
over
the
language
of
nrs
chapter
637
to
make
sure
that
the
language
both
reflects
current
practices,
best
practices
and
then
also
take
away
some
of
the
more
cumbersome
areas.
C
That's
a
little
bit
confusing
for
people,
and
so
this
bill
is
being
brought
forward
to
try
to
present
that
at
the
same
time,
let's
be
re
realistic.
It's
a
very
extensive
bill.
I
think
it's
37
pages,
and
so
ms
lax
salt,
the
lobbyist
for
the
nevada
board
of
dispensing
opticians,
has
actually
done
a
nine
page
kind
of
chart
that
clarifies
where
all
those
changes
are,
and
that
should
be
on
nellis
for
those
people
that
are
following
along
due
to
the
nature
of
the
very
technical
language.
C
With
your
permission
chair
here,
I'd
like
to
actually
hand
it
over
to
corinne
cedrin
who's.
The
executive
director
of
the
nevada
board
of
dispensing
opticians
and
nina
laxalt,
who
is
their
lobbyist
this
session,
would
that
be
acceptable.
Chair?
Yes,
ms
anderson,
thank
you
so
much
so
miss
cedrin
and
miss
laxalt.
It's
on
to
you.
K
K
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
nida
laxalt
today
representing
the
dispensing
opticians
board
and
as
the
sponsor
had
said,
the
board
has
been
going
through
their
regulations
and
trying
to
clean
them
up
and
update
them
and,
as
they
were
doing
that,
of
course,
they
discovered
that
they
were
going
to
need
some
changes
and
clean
up
with
their
statutes
as
well.
So
this
is
in
fact
a
full
statute.
Cleanup
it's
taking
some
of
the
outdated
areas.
K
It's
combining
areas
that
were
either
repetitive
or
confusing,
and
so
they're,
hoping
that
this
this
bill,
that's
presented
to.
You
will
make
it
a
lot
easier
for
applicants
to
understand
the
law
and
the
licensing
process,
and
with
that
I
will
go
through
the
provisions
of
the
bill
itself
and
I
basically
clip
and
pasted
this
off
of
the
digest.
So
I
apologize
for
that,
but
I
did
with
korean,
provide
a
beautiful
chart
in
a
spreadsheet
that
will
help.
You
also
understand
each
section
by
section,
but
the
bill
authorizes
the
dispensing
opticians
to
employ
an
executive
director.
K
K
K
It
prescribes
criteria
for
eligibility
for
licensed
as
an
apprentice,
dispensing
competition
that
clarifies
certain
requirements
relating
to
eligibility
for
a
limited
license
as
a
dispensing
optician
revises
criteria
for
eligibility
for
a
license
as
a
dispensing
optician
removes
the
authority
of
the
board
to
issue
a
special
license
as
a
dispensing
optician
reorganizes
certain
provisions
and
increases
the
amount
of
the
administrative
fine
for
engaging
in
certain
activity
without
holding
a
license.
K
And
if
you
look
at
the
bill
section
24
section
3,
I
believe
at
the
very
bottom
and
it's
talking
about
accepting
gifts,
grants
and
those
sections
of
course
were
deleted.
But
it
has
administered
oaths
and
issues
subpoenas
to
compel
the
attendance
of
a
witness
and
the
production
of
books
and
papers,
and
simply
we
needed
to
have
added
documents
in
any
other
article
related
to
the
practice
of
off
the
ma
I'll.
I
cannot
say
the
word
ultimate.
K
So
so,
anyway,
that
those
were
just
a
few
words
that
were
missing
again
the
same
words
that
are
in
other
boards
language
and
so
that's
sort
of
a
quick
summary
on
what
the
bill
is
doing,
and
I
have
corrine
sedram
here,
who
is
the
executive
director
for
the
dispensing
opticians
and
she's,
going
to
somewhat
follow
the
the
spreadsheet
that
was
provided
not
only
to
all
of
you
in
an
email
last
friday,
as
well
as
this
presentation,
but
is
also
on
the
exhibits
for
today.
K
So
she
can
go
through
and
give
you
section
by
section
or
combine
sections
by
sections
and
then
be
able
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have
following.
I
appreciate
your
time
and
hope
you
consider
support.
N
Okay,
thank
you,
hello
found
a
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
corinne
sedger
and
I'm
the
executive
director
for
the
board
of
dispensing
opticians.
I
apologize
in
advance
for
the
terrible
video
quality.
I
obviously
need
a
zoom
light,
but
I'm
just
going
to
do
the
best
I
can
for
today,
with
with
the
setup
that
we
have
so
yeah,
as
nina
already
alluded
to
this
bill
is
meant
to
clean
up
the
bill
that
or
I'm
sorry
our
current
statute,
which
is
outdated.
N
It's
very
clunky
and
it's
just
not
very
easy
to
navigate
for
people
who
are
not
it's
not
even
easy
to
navigate
for
someone
like
me
who
deals
with
it
on
a
daily
basis-
and
I
know
assemblywoman
anderson
did
allude
to
the
fact
that
you
know
the
the
bill
is
very
very
long.
Part
of
the
reason
for
that
is
that
our
statute
is
incredibly
long
and
cumbersome,
and
so
you
know
our
main
purpose
here
is
to
not
only
update
but
consolidate
it,
make
it
clear
and
comprehensible
to
anybody.
N
That's
going
to
try
to
navigate
our
bill
and
figure
out
the
laws
pertaining
to
alcoholic
dispensing
for
anybody
who
doesn't
know
all
plumbing
dispensers
nevada
dispense,
prescription,
ophthalmic
products
such
as
contact
lenses
and
spectacles.
N
So
we
license
everyone
in
nevada
other
than
optometrists
and
ophthalmologists
who
are
dispensing
these
products
to
the
public
I'll
just
go
through
as
quickly
as
I
can
each
individual
provision
of.
If
there's
questions
on
the
reasoning
behind
any
of
them,
I
can
answer
those
the
first.
The
first
change
we
made
was
changing
the
short
title
of
the
chapter.
It
just
was
an
unnecessary
provision.
We
never
allude
to
the
short
title
of
the
chapter
we
always
just
referred
to
it
as
nrs
chapter
637.
N
N
We
did
do
some
definitional
updates,
specifically
this
term
of
comic
dispensing
needed
to
be
updated
to
reflect
current
practices.
Specifically,
we
wanted
to
remove
this
word
design
from
the
definition.
I'm
sorry
not
design
delivery
from
the
definition
of
alternate
dispensing
to
reflect
reality
that
a
lot
of
these
dispensing
is
happening
online
now,
online
purveyors
are
actually
delivering
the
products
to
the
consumers
as
well.
As
you
know,
in
a
retail
setting,
you
often
have
somebody
who
may
not
be
licensed,
but
who
is
actually
just
handing
the
product
over
to
the
customer.
N
N
I
believe
that
covers
pretty
much
everything
under
this
first
section
of
the
board's
bills,
which
has
to
do
with
you
know
general
provisions,
I'm
going
to
move
on
to
board
of
dispensing
opticians.
That's
the
next
section
heading
in
our
law.
N
We've
made
some
changes
to
not
the
functionality
of
the
board,
but
just
the
language
to
reflect
the
functionality
of
the
board.
We
added
a
provision
allowing
the
governor
to
appoint
a
person
to
fulfill
the
current
term
if
a
member
leaves
or
resigns
before
from
the
board.
We
have
had
that
situation
before
we
have
an
opening
and
we
just
need
the
governor
to
fill
it.
We
have
consolidated
provisions
pertaining
to
electing
officers
of
the
board
what
constitutes
a
quorum
general
functioning
of
the
board
in
an
office
setting
these
again
this.
N
This
law
does
not
reflect
current
practice,
so
it
alludes
to
a
secretary
of
the
board.
The
board
hasn't
employed
a
secretary
of
the
board,
at
least
with
that
title
in
many
years,
this
new
provision
allows
the
board
to
hire
an
executive
director
and
any
other
personnel
as
needed.
N
It
just
clarifies
we
are
able
to
contract
with
outside
counsel
with
outside.
You
know
sorry
outside
experts
in
other
in
other
areas,
it
just
clarifies
the
board's
ability
to
do
that
again
clarifies
a
quorum
and
it
allows
the
governor
to
remove
or
replace
a
member
of
the
board.
N
N
There
may
be
some
questions
about
this
immunity
clause
did
follow
verbatim
language
from
the
massage
therapy
board
statute.
When
putting
this
in
place,
this
is
pretty
common
in
occupational
licensing
board
statutes.
N
N
The
idea
is
that
we
should
have
immunity
when
we're
trying
to
carry
out
the
duties
of
our
jobs
or
of
our
board
terms.
N
Another
provision
that
may
have
some
questions
this
gives
grants
donations
that
the
board
is
able
to
now
take
gifts,
grants
and
donations
to
carry
out
the
provisions
of
this
chapter.
This
clause
was
originally
under
disciplinary
actions.
It
allowed
the
board
to
accept
gifts
and
donations
to
carry
out
investigations.
N
It
did
not
seem
to
make
sense
from
the
perspective
that
investigations
are
supposed
to
be
confidential
until
the
board
takes
disciplinary
action
it
just.
It
seemed
to
mean
in
the
in
that
context,
that
the
board
could
take
a
donation
from
somebody
who's
filing
a
complaint
to
carry
out
the
you
know
the
investigation
it
it
doesn't
make
sense
from
a
public
records
perspective.
N
You
know
any
donations
to
the
board,
any
any
income
would
need
to
be
public,
and
yet
the
complaint
is
supposed
to
be
confidential,
so
to
have
that
provision
under
the
complaint
section
did
not
make
sense.
We've
moved
it
here.
We,
as
far
as
I
know,
we've
never
accepted
donations
to
you
know
to
pro
to
fulfill
the
the
provisions
of
this
chapter.
I
am
not
aware
of
accepting
any
gifts
or
donations.
N
We
are
a
very
small
board
and
we
operate
on
a
very
tight
budget.
So
my
thinking
is
on
this
provision.
If
we
are
in
a
tight
spot,
like
we
had
this
past
year,
he
may
not
have
been
able
to
collect
all
the
licensing
fees
for
the
renewal
fees
that
we
normally
would
on
on
a
regular
year
that
this
would
give
the
board
the
op
the
ability
to
continue
functioning
if
we
were
to
collect
grants
and
donations
for
that
purpose.
N
We
did
add
a
well.
We
consolidated
some
rule
making
provisions
under
a
single
section
here,
so
the
board
now
under
this
provision,
would
have
general
rulemaking
authority.
We
wanted
to
consolidate
a
lot
of
the
more
administrative
practices
of
the
board
related
to
administering
licenses,
issuing
renewal,
checking
on
ce
credits.
You
know
inactivating
and
reactivating
licenses.
We
want
to
move
that
off
into
the
regulations
so
that
we
have
more
flexibility
again
in
cases
of
unusual
years
like
this
past,
one
that
we
had.
N
So
we
wanted
to
have
the
ability
to
change
those
deadlines
and
those
renewal
dates
as
we
need
to,
and
that
is
that's
a
major
reason
for
moving
you
know.
Most
of
most
of
these
administrative
issues
into
the
regulations
is
to
have
more
flexibility
on
those
issues.
N
We
also
wanted
to
consolidate
some
regulations
pertaining
to
minimum
standards
of
quality
for
lenses
and
for
dispensing
prescription
products.
We
wanted
to
again
clarify
those
things
under
the
regulations,
so
just
giving
the
board
a
general
regulations
provision
here
and
also
just
the
general
rules
and
responsibilities
of
the
board
here,
consistent
with
other
occupational
licensing
board,
statues.
N
Okay
and
then
we
did
remove
this
is
the
last
the
last
provision
I
want
to
speak
to
under
the
board
of
dispensing
opticians
heading,
and
this
is
to
deal
with
complaints,
and
what
we
really
did
here
was
move
all
this
complaint,
all
these
complaint
provisions
under
disciplinary
and
other
actions
at
the
end
of
the
statute.
So
again
it's
consolidated.
It
makes
sense
and
it's
easy
for
people
to
find
what
they're,
looking
for
with
respect
to
complaints
and
disciplinary
action.
N
Okay,
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
the
license.
I'm
sorry
licenses,
which
is
the
next
subject
heading
in
our
statute.
This
was
the
one
that
we
really
wanted
to
focus
on
when
changing
our
statute.
This
was
the
big
one
that
was
causing
the
most
confusion
for
people,
the
most
difficulty
for
us
when
we
wanted
to
update
our
licensing
requirements
to
reflect
current
practice.
So
this
is
where
we
really
made
a
lot
of
I'm
sorry.
Corinne.
C
N
I'm
okay,
but
just
so
I'm
clear
you
want
the
nrs
and
page
number
for
the
original
statue
or
for
the.
C
N
Okay,
are
you
asking
for
the
page
number
for
the
bill
or
for
the
original
statute.
A
A
N
Okay,
I'm
sorry.
I
am
on
page
four
of
seven.
A
N
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
apologize
for
clarifying
so
under
on
page
four,
we're
looking
at
nrs
637.100
and
which
would
be
section
20
of
the
bill,
qualifications
for
examination
and
licensing
as
a
dispensing
optician.
So
the
current
practices
we
are
using
a
national
exam
to
test
proficiency,
and
so
this
you
know
provision
is
outdated.
We
do
want
to
leave
the
board
the
ability
to
administer
its
own
exam
if
it
decides
to
do
so
in
the
future.
N
But
what
we
really
want
to
do
is
streamline
the
requirements
for
licensure,
and
so
what
we
did
was
we
really
took
out
a
lot
of
the
subheadings,
a
lot
of
the
confusing
you
know
allusions
to
100
contact
lens
hours.
You
know
the
certification
of
the
things
like
that,
just
the
specifics
of
it
that
really
should
be
addressed
in
regulation
rather
than
in
statute.
N
N
So
I
think
that
pretty
much
covers
what
we've
changed
with
that.
With
that
section
we
also
have
taken
out-
or
I'm
sorry,
we've
added
a
provision
regarding
out-of-state
applicants
to
clarify
the
waiver
requirements
and
that
the
board
can
waive
certain
requirements
listed
under
nrs637.100.
N
We
want
to
make
it
very
clear
what
what
the
weight,
what
the
board
can
weigh
what
is
still
required,
and
you
wanted
to
take
out
this
provision
related
to
special
licenses,
because
that,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
a
special
license
is
exactly
the
same
as
the
standard,
although
dispensing
license
special
license
refers
to
somebody
who's
coming
from
out
of
state
and
they're,
just
using
a
different
application,
they
have
different
requirements,
but
the
license
is
exactly
the
same.
N
I'm
going
to
move
on
to
section
again
on
page
four
nrs637.110
and
115.
These
have
been
repealed
again,
these
are
just
really
particulars
relating
to
licensing
administration.
N
N
All
of
these
sections
that
are
listed
here
is
being
repealed
again
we're
just
streamlining
the
licensing
requirements
taking
out
anything
that's
redundant,
moving
all
of
the
deadlines
and
fees
into
the
realm
of
the
regulations.
N
We
are,
we
are
addressing
apprentice
licenses
now
under
a
new
section,
so
they
are
in
their
own
separate
section
and
it's
clarified
in
streamline
I'll,
go
ahead
and
move
down
to
the
bottom
of
page
five
nrs637.121
section
21
of
the
bill,
so
this
is
just
to
clarify.
Limited
licenses
are
no
longer
being
issued
by
the
board.
It's
a
license
to
only
dispense
spectacles
as
opposed
to
contact
lenses,
and
the
board
is
no
longer
issuing
those
licenses
only
dual
full
licenses.
N
So
this
is
just
relating
to
limited
licenses.
Their
ability
to
still
hold
that
license.
They've
been
grandfathered
under
these
statutes,
and
so
they
can
continue
to
hold
that
license.
But
if
they
let
the
license
laps,
they
won't
be
able
to
get
a
new
limited
license
and
we
are
not
issuing
limited
licenses
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
page
six
again
under
the
licenses.
Subheading
637.125,
we've
really
just
streamlined
again.
N
Provisions
related
to
the
employment
of
authentic
dispensers
and
apprentice,
ophthalmic
dispensers
clarified
the
supervision
requirements
and
just
really
clarified
that
you
cannot
practice
without
a
license
and
that,
if
you
are
employing
somebody
who
is
practicing
without
a
license,
you're
going
to
be
culpable
as
well
under
our
laws,
that's
already
in
the
law,
we
just
you
just
streamlined
it
section
10
of
the
bdr.
N
That's
all
can
contain
now
under
a
single
section
and
clarified.
As
far
as
what
is
a
public
record
versus
what
is
confidential
section
23,
this
is
what
is
nrs.
637.150
provisions
related
to
disciplinary
actions
have
been
streamlined,
so
we
wanted
to
streamline
a
professional
contact.
We
also
wanted
to
update
the
definition
of
unprofessional
conduct.
N
There
were
so
many
subheadings
under
this
section.
It
was
confusing
and
rambling
and
we
just
wanted
to
streamline
and
consolidate
and
make
it
very
clear.
I
don't
think
we've
we've
changed
anything
as
far
as
substantively.
I
don't
think.
We've
changed
much
of
the
what
what
would
constitute
what
would
constitute
an
action
that
would
require
disciplinary
action
by
the
board,
but
we
have
clarified
it
section
24.
N
This
is
related
to
investigations
against
streamlining
the
board's
investigatory
authority
general
authority
to
conduct
investigations.
The
the
provisions
related
to
issuing
subpoenas
have
been
moved
from
up
above
under
they
were
initially
under
the
general
provisions.
I
believe.
Actually,
I
think
they
were
under
board
of
opticians
and
they've,
been
moved
here
again
to
streamline
and
clarify
everything
related
to
disciplinary
actions
by
the
board
I'll
go
ahead
and
go
on
to
page
seven.
N
These
two
sections,
637.155
and
0.170-
have
been
repealed
and
they've
just
been
combined.
These
provisions
have
been
combined
with
section
637.150,
streamlining.
N
0.175
has
also
been
repealed.
This
was
a
single
provision
under
the
miscellaneous
provisions
heading
it
pertained
to
dispensing
prescriptions.
Giving
these
the
length
of
time
a
prescription
is
valid.
Again
we
moved
this
under
the
general
rulemaking
authority.
That
would
be
section
18.
I
believe-
and
we
just
put
everything
that
the
board
might
want
to
regulate,
pertaining
to
scope
of
practice
and
standards
of
practice
under
that
one
section
pertaining
to
rule-making
authorities.
N
Finally
I'll
finally
get
to
the
unturned
637.181
prohibited
acts,
penalties
and
enforcement.
Both
this
section
and
0.183
govern
unlicensed
activities.
But
this
section
this
first
section
0.181
deals
with
individuals.
0.183
deals
with
employers,
so
there
was
a
fee
change
to
0.183
to
match.
I'm
sorry,
not
a
fee.
A
fine.
The
the
fine
cap
was
changed
in
0.183
in
this
draft
to
match
that
in
0.181,
the
reasoning
being
that
often
when
there
is
an
unlicensed
individual,
dispensing
breaking
the
laws.
N
So
that
was
our
reason
for
increasing
the
fines
against
the
employers
to
match
what
the
fine
is
or
what
the
the
mind
cap
is
for
the
individuals
and
that
that
is
everything
that
I
have
here.
I
know
that
was
very
lengthy,
but
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
C
And
also
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
again
thank
you,
chair
for,
for
allowing
us
this
time
to
present.
I
know,
there's
a
large
amount
of
things
and
and
we'll
be
continuing
to
work
with
the
board
to
get
that
clarified,
and
so
it's
tough
to
to
try
to
get
such
technical
information.
But,
more
than
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have,
but
again
just
want
to
thank
you
for
getting
this
scheduled
so
quickly
with
such
in-depth
information.
A
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
thank
you.
Assemblywoman
anderson,
tackling
the
board
bill
your
first
year
out
is.
It
is
a
huge
lift.
They
are
very,
very
complicated
and
very
difficult
to
explain,
and
especially
in
this
environment,
when
you
can't
have
individual
conversations
with
folks
and
madam
chair.
If,
if
I
ask
a
question,
that's
that's
already
been
answered.
I
apologize.
I
I
just
realized.
There
was
a
chart,
it
was
sent
on
friday
late
and
I
did
not
get
it
so
we
were
busy
this
morning,
so
I'm
going
through
the
chart
right
now
trying
to
figure
out
where
all
the
pieces
fit,
but
the
the
one
thing
that
I
would
kind
of
like
to
address
is
in
in
section
six
they're
talking
about
waiving
requirements
for
licensure
and
under
sub
three.
They
have.
I
I
You
want
to
make
sure
that
that
five
years
of
experience
there
isn't
something
else
that
might
have
been
going
on
if
they
were
working
in
another
state
and
how
that
overlays
with
the
the
other
provisions-
and
I
think
it
was
I'm
flipping
quickly-
section
18
in
licensure,
under
section
18,
the
board
being
able
to
evaluate
the
applications
when
you
lay
18
on
top
of
6-3.
I
How
does
that
actually
work?
Because
I
love
the
way
you
started
this?
The
legislature
declares
that
the
purpose
of
this
chapter
is
to
protect
the
public
just
because
they
have
a
solid
license
for
five
years
doesn't
mean
there
might
not
have
been
another
issue
in
the
last
five
years.
So
I'd
like
to
understand
how
those
two
sections
would
work
together
and
does
the
board
have
the
authority
to
deny
a
license
or
will
they
have
to
accept
someone
from
out
of
state
otherwise
known
as
reciprocity
under
section
6.
C
Oh
no
after
you
cran
with
sandra.
N
N
What
the
language
and
the
current
statute
says,
if
you
are
licensed
in
another
state
or
u.s
territory,
we
can
well,
you
can
bypass
our
apprenticeship
program
and
if
you
are
not
licensed
in
other
state
or
u.s
territory,
you
must
have
had
five
or
more
years
experience
in
an
unlicensed
state
or
territory.
So
what
we
were
trying
to
clarify
here
was
that
the
experience
can
be
from
a
state
or
a
territory
where
they
do
have
what
they
call
like
a
certification
or
a
limited
license,
something
that
does
not.
N
That
is
not
on
par
with
what
we
issue
and
their
licensing
requirements
are
not
comparable
to
our
licensing
requirements.
We
wanted
to
accommodate
those
people
by
by
making
it
a
five-year
requirement.
N
However,
as
far
as
you
know,
other
other
requirements
to
to
verify
that
these
people
are
competent
to
practice,
we
were
going
to
address
that
with
the
national
certifications
and
and
examinations
that
are
required
first
of
all.
But
secondly,
this
language
is
that
the
board
may
waive
these
requirements.
N
So
we
wanted
to
leave
ourselves
open
for
the
board
still
to
do
a
full
review
of
all
of
these
applications
and
just
review
and
understand
what
the
the
totality
of
this
person's
experience
is,
as
you
suggested,
and
determine
based
on
that,
whether
they're
going
to
issue
a
license.
But
the
point
of
the
new
language
was
to
allow
the
board
to
issue
licenses
to
someone
who
may
not
have
a
comparable
license
in
another
state
or
territory,
but
they
do
have
plenty
of
work.
Experience.
I
Okay-
and
I
understand
that,
because
I'm
cleaning-
and
I
totally
appreciate
it-
I'm
cleaning
up
a
bill
of
my
own
that'll
end
up
be
going
to
another
committee,
because
apparently
I
wasn't
clear
enough
on
exactly
what
I
wanted.
So
I've
had
to
basically
do
a
pretty
full
rewrite
and
I'm
said
I'm
pretty
familiar
with
this
five-year
language.
We
created
it
as
credentialing
when
we
did
the
original
dental
bill
back
in
gosh,
I
want
to
say
2003
and
it's
basically
looking
at
a
person
over
the
last
five
years.
I
It's
not
just
work
experience,
it's
looking
at
them
in
a
totally
holistic
way
to
make
sure
you
know
they
may
have
great
work
experience,
but
there
could
be
something
else
on
their
record.
That
would
make
you
want
to
take
pause
as
far
as
protecting
the
public
in
this
state.
So
I
think
you
definitely
want
to
address
that
and
if
I,
if
I
could,
madam
chair,
there
was
a
section
under
18
also
it
is
on
page
10
at
the
top
established
standards
of
practice
for
persons
licensed.
Typically,
we
do
scope
of
practice
and
statute.
I
So
everybody
knows
what
their
rules
are.
As
far
as
their
scope
of
practice
goes
establishing
that
those
by
regulation
could
cause
issues
with
other
practitioners
that
are
in
this
general
area,
and
we
had
a
very
contentious
bill
last
session
with
optometrists.
I
believe
it
was
so.
I
I
would
just
be
apprehensive
of
scope
of
practice
being
defined
in
regulation
and
not
actually
put
into
statutes
so
that
we
know
where
everyone's
scope
actually
lies
and
there's
no
crossover
if
you've
ever
been
in
a
turf
battle
in
this
building
over
school
for
practice,
you
wouldn't
forget
it,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
delineated
very
clearly.
N
I'm
sorry
I
apologize.
This
is
karen
with
the
board
of
opticians.
I
did
want
to
clarify.
I
believe
I
misspoke
earlier
when
I
I
spoke
about
scope
of
practice
within
section
18.,
scope
of
practice
will
still
be
addressed
under
a
definition
of
balsamic
dispensing.
N
This
is
what
we
want
to
clarify
with
respect
to
standards
of
practice,
not
scope
of
practice,
meaning
when
they
can
or
cannot
issue
a
prescription,
how
they
are
going
to
qualify
which
lenses
are
up
to
up
to
par
and
which
ones
aren't
before
they're
dispensed.
So
we
did
not
mean
for
these
regulations
to
go
into
issues
of
scope
of
practice,
but
just
standards
of
practice.
I
And,
and
thank
you,
madam
chair,
very
much,
I
think
what
I'm
going
to
have
to
do
is
pull
out
their
current
chapter
and
lay
this
next
to
each
other
page
by
page,
to
just
kind
of
figure
out
what
the
real
changes
are
and
and
go
from
there.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
assembly,
member
anderson
for
bringing
this,
and
my
question
is
for
mr
cedran
and
I
may
be
getting
a
little
confused
on
this.
So
I
appreciate
explaining
this
to
me,
but
going
back
to
what
vice
chair
said
about
the
regulations
first
thing
versus
having
something
in
statute.
F
In
section
nine,
you
have
the
board
shall
adopt
regulations,
establishing
establishing
reasonable
fees
for,
and
then
that
list-
and
I
noticed
in
the
current
nrs
statute,
those
are
listed
and
there's
fees
from
100
250,
300
500,
depending
on
what
all
of
those
issues
or
requirements
are
and
then
the
last
line
in
session
section
nine
says
that
this
is
for
the
cost
to
reimburse
the
board
for
the
cost
of
carrying
out
the
provisions
of
the
chapter,
except
that
no
such
fee
may
exceed
five
hundred
dollars,
and
there
are
already
now
some
that
are
five
hundred
dollars
and
reading
that
in
conjunction
with
section
15,
where
the
board
will
be
employing
an
executive
director
and
other
employees
to
establish
their
duties
fix
their
salaries.
F
I
guess
what
my
my
question
is:
if
they're
in
regulations
they'll
be
easier
to
change,
but
with
all
of
this
happening
at
once,
are
there
reserves
to
pay
for
any
of
those
salaries,
or
will
that
automatically
trigger,
like
all
of
those
fees,
to
go
up
to
500,
to
meet
the
requirements,
to
reimburse
the
board.
N
Oh
okay,
thank
you
yeah.
So
to
answer
your
question.
I'll
go!
First
to
the
fees
section,
the
new
feed
section.
N
Yes,
current,
I'm
the
executive
director
for
the
board
of
opticians.
I
apologize
I'll
I'll
do
my
best.
So
again,
with
this
section,
nine
disease
provision,
we
really
wanted
a
consolidated
fees
provision
and
the
reason
we
left
out
the
individual
caps
was
simply
because
we
wanted
to
leave
it
open
to
potentially
do
bi-annual,
renewals
or
renewals.
For
you
know,
length
of
time
that
is
different
than
just
the
annual
cycle.
I
was
with
respect
to
apprentices,
who
might
be
licensed
for
only
two
years
before
they
get
their
opticians
licensed.
N
So
that
was
the
reason
for
leaving
off
the
caps.
We
kept
the
500
cap
simply
because
that
was
the
highest
half
available
in
the
statute.
However,
if
we
need
to
amend
this
to
include
individual
paps
again
and
keep
them
where
they're
at
that's,
not
a
problem,
we're
open
to
doing
that,
but
that's
just
why
we
left
it
more
open-ended
as
far
as
the
reserves.
Yes,
we
have
reserves.
We
can
function,
we're
not
we're
not
going
to
be
desperately
increasing
fees
or
anything
in
the
coming
year,
and
that
wasn't
the
intent
here.
N
It
was
really
just
for
flexibility
for
the
renewal
cycle
and
just
that
issue
primarily.
F
Thank
you.
I
know
in
I'm
a
freshman,
so
my
short
time
here,
what
what
I'm
keep?
What
I
continue
to
see
and
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
follow
up
question
share.
F
What
I
continue
to
see
is
that
the
fees
are
actually
put
in
statute
so
that
I
guess
they
are
a
little
bit
potentially
takes
more
time
to
change
them,
but
also
that
again
as
to
the
vice
chair
point
before,
so
that
they
can
be
seen
consistently
across
across
all
the
different
boards.
So
we
know
what
they
are,
so
I
just
didn't
know
if
that
you
know
there
was
a
reason
to
not
keep
them
in
statute
as
opposed
to
putting
them
in
the
regulations
when
most
seems
to
be
in
statute.
N
I
will
thank
you,
the
current
sergeant
executive
director
for
the
board
of
opticians,
so
it
answered
your
question.
We
did
follow
the
models
of
other
occupational
licensing
boards
when
creating
this
statue
and
we
did
it
piecemeal.
So
we
took
some
from
some
statues
and
some
from
the
others,
but
primarily
we
tried
to
follow
the
example
of
the
board
of
occupational
therapy,
because
their
statute
was
so
clean
and
concise
and
clear-cut.
That
is
one
of
the
few
statutes
where
they
do
not
delineate
the
individual
fees,
and
so
we
followed
that
prototype.
B
Thank
you
chair
for
the
time
miss
cedric.
I
may
have
misunderstood
you,
but
I
I
want
a
question
on
section:
17,
actually
17
and
also
section
15.,
but
17
did
you
say
other
boards,
you're
modeling
this
after
other
boards,
that
accept
gifts,
grants
etcetera
and
donations
to
conduct
your
business
and
that
it
can
mention
about
it,
influencing
your
investigations.
N
Yes,
sir,
this
is
prince
edgar
of
board
of
opticians.
We
did
model
this
one
particular
provision
on
the
board
of
massage
therapy,
massage
therapy
board,
and
theirs
was
a
general
provision
relating
to
all
operating
expenses
of
their
board
that
they
were
allowed
to
accept
gifts,
grants
and
donations.
N
We
did
see
a
provision
similar
to
our
current
provision,
which
only
pertains
to
investigations,
and
that
was
in
the
board
of
psychological
examiners
statute
and
the
reason
we
thought
it
did
not
fall
under
investigations
was
again
because
our
investigations
are
supposed
to
be
confidential
until
the
board
takes
a
formal
public
action,
and
so
it
just
didn't
seem
to
make
sense
to
give
scranton
donations
for
that
particular
purpose.
When
that
gift
grant
donation
is
going
to
be
public,
that
was
our
thinking
again.
N
B
I
appreciate
that
I've
got
to
say
that
I
think
I
still
have
a
little
some
issues
with
a
licensing
board
receiving
any
kind
of
grants,
gifts,
donations
that
it
could
possibly
influence
them,
one
way
or
another
unduly
or
even
who's
a
member
of
the
board.
If
the
person
trying
to
get
on
the
board
gives
one
gift
versus
the
first
another
person
not,
and
with
that
in
mind
chairman,
I
asked
one
other
question
regarding
salaries
of
of
the
employees
and.
B
Thank
you
chair,
the
other
one,
miss
cedrin
is,
as
I
recall,
oh,
I
think
it
was
lcb
audit
or
maybe
during
the
last
year
or
so
did
an
audit
where
another
agency
or
commission
was
allowed
to
set
their
own
salaries
etc,
and
they
were
quite
excessive.
B
N
N
Right
so
I
answered
your
question:
there
wouldn't
be
a
provision
in
here.
There
isn't
one
currently
and
as
far
as
I
know,
of
the
other
board,
occupational
licensing
statutes
do
not
address
the
compensation
of
the
executive,
director
or
other
staff,
as
far
as
I
know
always
set
in
public
meetings
as
part
of
the
public
budget
and
that's
submitted
to
the
lcd
every
year.
In
our
particular
case,
we're
such
a
small
board.
Oh
our
our
compensation
is
never
going
to
be
excessive,
just
because
it
would
bankrupt
the
board.
N
However,
there
would
not
be
you
know
a
provision
in
here
to
prevent
it
from
being
excessive.
But
again
it
is
not
a
provision.
That's
currently
in
the
statute,
and
what
we've
really
done
here
is
is
switch
they
originally.
The
original
statute
alluded
to
a
board
secretary
and
we're
changing
the
language
to
board
director
just
to
reflect
the
current
title
and
current
practice.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
the
the
conversation
about
gifts,
grants
and
donations.
That's
pretty
much
boilerplate
language
that
we
put
in
a
lot
of
different
places.
There
have
been
boards
in
the
past
that
have
gone
for
a
grant
to
increase
their
technology.
I
I
I
understand
where
there
might
be
some
concerns,
but
I
think
we
all
have
to
remember.
They're,
all
appointed
by
the
governor
all
board
members
have
to
sign
statements
of
disclosure.
They
have
to
comply
with
all
the
ethics
rules
in
the
state.
This
just
allows
the
boards
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
to
maybe
do
some
of
the
things
outside
of
the
actual
licensing
regime
regime.
I
Sometimes
a
group
will
want
to
come
in
and
do
a
presentation
or
hold
a
virtual
class
for
all
the
licensees
to
help
keep
the
cost
of
their
continuing
education
credits
down,
so
they
may
get
a
grant
for
that
or
a
donation
from
a
foundation
to
do
an
educational
function.
So
this
is
pretty
much
boilerplate
that
we
put
in
a
lot
of
places,
you'll
even
see
it
in
a
number
of
state
agencies,
so
that
money
can
be
accepted.
I
I
know
for
a
while
we,
a
few
years
ago,
we
had
to
add
it
to
dps,
because
someone
wanted
to
make
a
gift
to
cover
some
things
for
some
officers,
but
they
weren't
allowed
to
do
that.
So
it's
it's
just
so
the
committee's
aware
it's
it's
fairly
typical
and
I
I
don't
see
any
real
issues
with
it.
Knowing
that
there
are
some
accountability
factors
built
in.
A
C
Yes,
I
did
thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
My
question
also
relates
to
section
six
three:
where
again,
we
have
at
least
five
years
of
work
experience.
My
question
is
what
is
typically
done
in
the
other
states?
I'm
just
kind
of
curious.
C
N
N
I
believe
I
believe
it's
22
states
now
that
issue
some
sort
of
license
or
certification
for
alcoholic
dispensing
so
in
in
you
know,
with
in
with
respect
to
your
question
about,
is
this
standard
with
other
states,
I
would
say
with
the
other
licensing
states?
Yes,
five
years
is
pretty
standard.
However,
again
this
is
not
a
profession
that
is
regularly
licensed
in
all
50
states
and
some
of
the
states
that
do
license
they.
N
They
issue
more
of
what
is
called
certification,
and
so
they
do
not
require
all
the
comprehensive
training
and
education
that
we
require
here
in
nevada.
But,
yes,
five
years
is
pretty
standard
for
for
license
transfers.
A
Okay,
that
actually
brings
up
a
question
for
me:
miss
centering.
You
just
said
that
all
the
other
states
do
not
require
as
comprehensive
well
the
amount
of
training
that
we
do.
A
comprehensive
training
program
like
we
do,
but
then
section
six
sub,
two
says
that
anyone
holding
a
license
or,
like
you
said
a
certificate
in
another
state,
can
just
come
into
nevada
and
we
would
give
them
reciprocity.
Basically
is
what
section
6
sub
2
says
and
yet
we're
going
to
hold
them
to
a
lower
standard
like
so.
A
N
Okay,
yes,
current
surgeon
board
of
opticians,
so
a
couple
of
things
in
response
to
question.
First
of
all,
we
do
not
have
any
intention
of
lowering
the
standards,
and
actually
we
did
change
the
language
here
under
subsection.
N
Two,
where
we
say,
holds
a
corresponding,
valid
and
unrestricted
license
in
a
state
or
district
with
licensing
requirements
that
are
substantially
similar
to
the
requirements
in
this
state
and
the
reason
we
specifically
added
that
language
in
there
is
because
the
current
statute
does
not
specify
that
the
licensing
requirements
have
to
be
substantially
equivalent.
N
It
just
has
any
license
from
another
state
or
u.s
territory,
and
so
we
did
run
into
issues
of
people
trying
to
transfer
from
another
state
where
the
licensing
requirements
were
not
as
stringent
as
our
licensing
requirements,
and
I
want
to
clarify
too
that
this
subsection,
when
we're
talking
about
waivers,
only
applies
to
the
section
of
637.100
pertaining
to
the
apprenticeship
training
program.
The
apprenticeship
program
involves
the
education
and
the
on-drug
training
component
of
the
licensing
structure.
N
However,
it
does
not,
it
does
not
exclude
these
people
from
having
to
take
the
national
exams,
the
certification
requirements,
any
other
requirement
of
the
board.
It
just
pertains
to
those
on-the-job,
training
and
education
requirements.
We
just
want
to
accommodate
those
for
coming
from
other
states
that
have
substantially
equivalent
requirements.
A
Thank
you,
mr
dran,
and
I
think
that
would
make
me
more
comfortable
having
that
substantially
equivalent
language,
I
think,
as
it's
written
right
now
it
just
it's
a
little
concerning.
So
I
look
forward
to
seeing
that
amendment.
I
also
have
another
question
on
section:
26,
I'm
going
to
need
you
to
walk
me
through
this
increase
in
fine
again
one
more
time.
I
know
you
touched
on
it
when
we
were
going
through
the
presentation,
but
it's
a
little
concerning
that
we're
raising
a
fine
from
a
thousand
dollars
to
ten
thousand
dollars
for
each
separate
violation.
N
N
I
believe
the
board's
reasoning
in
this
was
just
that
oftentimes,
you
have
an
unlicensed
individual
who's,
dispensing
under
the
direction
of
the
employer
that
unlicensed
individual
doesn't
even
necessarily
know
the
laws
pertaining
to
ophthalmic
dispensing
or
that
it's
that
there's
a
licensing
requirement,
and
so
the
idea
is
that
if
the
person
is
employing
is
the
employer,
they
need
to
know
the
laws
in
nevada
regarding
their
employees
and
if
they
don't,
then
they
should
be
the
more
culpable
party.
They
should
be
subject
to
these
higher
fines
as
opposed
to
the
individual.
N
However,
that
said
there
are
situations,
of
course,
where
the
employer
does
not
know
what's
going
on
with
their
employee,
and
you
know,
and
maybe
they're
not
the
only
on
the
job
manager.
Maybe
they
just
don't
know
what
the
employee
is
doing
for
for
whatever
reason,
and
so
the
ten
thousand
dollars
is
a
cap.
It's
not
necessarily
our
initial
fine
that
we
would
issue
and,
more
often
than
not,
we
usually
end
up
doing
some
sort
of
a
you
know,
an
agreement
settlement
agreement.
N
If
there's
some
sort
of
an
imposition
of
a
fine,
but
that
was
the
board's
reasoning
for
increasing
the
cap
on
this
particular
fine
that
I
again
we're
open
to
in
a
moment
if
this
is
an
issue.
A
N
You
know,
as
far
as
the
regulations,
I
believe
the
fines
are
put
here,
but
yeah
you're
correct.
We
would
need
to
address
that.
Maybe,
like
this
tier,
a
situation
in
the
regulations
or
a
tiered
provision
denoting
when
we
would,
you
know,
impose
each
type
of
a
fine
or
what
each
sorry
each
amount
of
the
fine.
But
I
don't
believe
we
have
that
in
the
current
regulations.
A
Okay,
thank
you
members.
I
didn't
see
any
other
questions
so
I
jumped
in,
but
I'm
gonna
do.
One
last
check.
Is
there
any
other
questions?
Madam
chair,
if
I
may.
I
Yes,
vice
chair
carlton,
thank
you
and
along
the
section
that
you
were
in,
and
I
was
kind
of
waiting
to
see
if,
if
someone
brought
it
up,
we've
had
a
lot
of
conversations
about
cease
and
desist
in
this
committee
over
over
the
years,
and
I
see
cease
and
desist
in
that
section
that
you
just
referenced,
but
we
really,
it
didn't,
really
get
totally
vetted.
So
what
would
be
the
process
for
issuing
a
cease
and
desist?
Because
that's
that's
serious,
that's
taking
someone's
job
away,
so
we
want
to
understand.
I
N
Okay,
thank
you,
and
this
is
prince
edwin
board
of
opticians.
So
what
the
the
situation
with
the
cease
and
desist
is
currently
in
the
current
statute,
so
this
language
has
not
changed.
We
haven't
added
that
what
we
have
added
as
a
citation
authority
seasoned
assist.
What
we've
normally
done
is
start
out
with
a
warning
letter,
which
is
not
a
judicial
season.
Just
I
understand,
but
we
send
a
warning
letter
to
any
person
that
we
have.
N
Knowledge
is
dispensing
without
a
license
and
then,
if
they
don't
comply
with,
if
we
send
in
a
you
know
an
inspector
and
they're
not
complied,
then
we
move
forward
with
judicial
action,
including
a
hearing
if
we
have
to
order
them
to
please
assist,
but
under
our
current
statute
we
actually
have
the
ability
to
issue
a
season
with
this
immediately.
N
So
that's
not
changing,
but
the
citation
authority.
What
we're
trying
to
accomplish
with
that
is
just
give
us
a
little
bit
of
teeth,
so
we're
not
sending
a
letter.
You
know
saying:
please
stop
dispensing
without
a
license.
They
ignore
us
and
then
we
have
to
launch
immediately
to
a
very
expensive
hearing
to
make
them
stop.
We're
not
trying
to
deprive
anybody
of
their
employment.
N
You
just
want
them
to
see
some
of
the
assists,
the
illegal
activity
which
is
dispensing
the
prescription
lenses
without
a
license,
so
there's
no
reason
why
they
have
to
shut
down
their
business
or
why
their
employer
needs
to
dismiss
them.
It's
just
that
particular
activity
which
is
dispensing
the
prescription
lenses
to
the
customer.
I
And
if
I
may,
madam
chair,
could
you
please
tell
me
where
you
have
that
authority?
Because,
as
I'm
reading
this,
I
see
a
lot
of
delineated
language
and
rewriting?
And
I
know
sometimes
when
legal
does
things
they
they
group
things
together
to,
for
you
know
statutory
construction.
N
Act,
current
cedric
board
of
opticians.
It
is
now
section
25
of
the
bill,
but
the
original
is
nrs
637.181.
N
I
A
Okay,
members
last
call:
I
don't
see
any
messages
through
skype
for
questions,
so
I'm
going
to
look
for
a
show
of
hands.
Okay,
seeing
none.
We
are
going
to
move
into
the
testimony
and
support
portion
of
the
bill
hearing
broadcasting.
Can
we
check
the
telephone
line
for
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support?
Please.
E
E
E
E
D
Oh
great
yay
technology,
my
name
is
christopher
grimm
g-r-I-m-m
and
I
am
testifying
on
behalf
of
warby
parker
ciara
harigi
members
of
the
committee.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify
on
av-391
warby
parker
is
a
vertically
integrated
eyewear
brand,
founded
in
2010
with
a
mission
to
provide
designer
eyewear
at
affordable
prices.
D
We
have
a
customer
base
that
we've
built
of
millions
using
technology
to
offer
prescription
eyewear
online
and
in
our
120
plus
stores
across
the
country,
including
one
in
las
vegas
by
circumventing
traditional
channels,
designing
glasses,
in-house
and
engaging
with
customers
directly.
We
provide
high
quality
better
looking
prescription
eyewear
at
a
fraction
of
the
going
price
starting
at
just
95
warby
parker
is
also
founded
to
be
a
positive
force
in
the
world
for
every
pair
of
glasses
that
we
sell.
We
distribute
a
pair
to
someone
in
need
to
date.
D
We've
distributed
more
than
7
million
pairs
of
glasses
to
people
in
the
united
states
and
abroad.
We
are
currently
considering
making
nevada
home
to
our
new
west
coast
lab,
which
will
be
a
manufacturing
site
to
better
serve
our
customers
on
the
western
half
of
the
country.
We're
still
reviewing
the
language
in
this
bill.
I
believe
there's
a
lot
of
good
here
in
terms
of
updating
the
licensing
requirements
and
the
general
regulations
on
optionry
we're
still
digging
through.
I
think,
as
everyone
on
this
committee
is
aware,
there's
a
lot
to
go
through
in
this
bill.
D
We're
looking
at
things
very
very
closely.
If
we
have
any
issues,
we
look
forward
to
working
with
the
sponsor
the
board
and
others
to
sort
of
work
out
any
issues
that
come
up
and
that's
why
we
are
neutral
because
we're
still
just
sort
of
going
through
all
the
language
and
reviewing
everything.
So
you
know,
hopefully,
we
will
be
able
to
work
out
any
issues
that
may
come
up.
Hopefully
there
won't
be
any,
but
we
just
wanted
to
sort
of
publicly
offer
our
testimony
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
C
Very
quickly,
thank
you
because
I
know
you
have
two
more
bills
to
be
heard
greatly
appreciate
the
amount
of
time
and
it's
pretty
clear
that
there's
still
just
a
little
bit
more
work
that
we
need
to
do
before
it's
ready
to
be
voted
out
during
a
work
session.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
the
questions
and
clarifications
we'll
try
to
get
those
back
to
the
committee
right
away.
A
I
A
Thank
you
vice
chair
carlton,
and
thank
you
members.
I
know
we've
had
a
long
afternoon,
so
I
will
keep
my
remarks
brief,
but
I
am
assemblywoman
sandra
haudegee.
I
proudly
represent
assembly
district
41
and
I'm
here
today
to
present
assembly
bill
to
90.
I'll,
keep
my
remarks
brief
and
say
that
I
was
happy
to
allow
one
of
my
bill
drop
requests
as
a
vehicle
for
this
proposed
bill.
A
I
have
mr
robert
waltz
vice
president
associate
general
counsel,
business
and
personal
trust
with
charles
straub
here,
and
I
promise
you
he
will
do
a
much
better
job
of
presenting
presenting
how
assembly
bill
290
will
benefit
nevada.
We
also
have
mr
jeff
brown
senior
vice
president
head
of
legislative
and
regulatory
affairs
with
charles
schwab
here
to
help
answer
any
questions
with
that.
Madam
vice
chair,
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
mr
waltz.
With
your
permission,.
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
madame
vice
chair
hi,
I'm
robert
wools,
I'm
general
counsel
of
charles
schwab,
trust
company
here
in
nevada
and
chu,
and
the
assistant
general
counsel
of
charles
schwab,
trust
bank,
which
are
the
two
financial
institutions
that
we
now
have
schwab
now
has
here
in
in
nevada.
M
All
of
you
are
familiar
with
schwab.
I
don't
know
that
you're
necessarily
familiar
with
how
how
schwab
has
a
long
history
of
of
banking
law
banking
institutions
here
in
the
state
going
back
over
20
years,
which
started
with
charles
schwab
trust
bank,
which
was
a
federally
chartered
bank,
originally
headquartered
in
reno.
M
Currently,
we
we
do
have
the
two
charters,
charles
trump
trust
bank,
which
is
focused
mostly
on
institutional
trust,
providing
trust
and
custody
services
to
employee
benefit
plan,
clients
and
charles
robb
trust
company,
which
is
a
personal
trust
company
located
in
henderson.
We
started
that
about
five
or
six
years
ago
it's
been
growing.
We
we've
just
gone
over
a
billion
in
assets
and
became
profitable
more
quickly
than
we
thought
we
would.
Charles
robb
trust
bank
has
about
300
billion
dollars
in
client
assets
and
charles
robb
trust
company.
M
Now,
in
nevada
has
about
a
billion
in
assets,
it
is
also
the
parent
corporation
of
our
other
non-depository
trust
company,
which
is
a
delaware
trust
company
which
has
more
in
assets,
but
together
it's
about
11
billion
for
our
entire
personal
trust
business.
That
business
is
headquartered
here.
Our
senior
management
is
here
in
henderson.
M
We
have
been
growing
here
in
leaps
and
bounds
because
we
found
that
nevada
really
provides
us
an
excellent
opportunity
to
conduct
these
businesses
here,
particularly
in
the
personal
trust
space,
because
we
are
able
to
avail
ourselves
and
offer
to
our
clients
the
benefits
of
the
cutting
edge,
trust
statutes.
That
nevada
has
on
the
personal
trust
side.
It
has
been
an
easy
sell
for
our
clients.
Since
we've
been
here
one
of
the
reasons
we
opened
it
is
because
we
needed
some.
M
We
need,
we
needed
a
presence
on
the
west
coast.
Not
all
of
our
clients
wanted
to
be
in
delaware
and
it's
been
very
warmly
received,
and
what
we're
finding
is
that
as
our
as
our
organization
grows
and
evolves,
we
increasingly
use
our
trust
companies
to
not
only
benefit
our
clients
in
different
ways,
but
also
to
facilitate
objectives
of
the
greater
schwab
organization
and
our
clients.
And,
as
that
happens,
our
business
grows.
M
We
also
assist
our
broker
dealer
in
other
areas
to
help
them
comply
with
their
regulatory
requirements
by
serving
in
roles
such
as
collateral
agents
and
things
like
that,
and
as
we
do
that
our
business
grows,
the
number
of
employees
we
require
in
nevada
grow.
So
it's
it's
been
a
good
story
for
us
and
I
think
it's
been
a
good
story
for
the
state.
So
we
as
as
we
go
through
this
and
try
to
try
to
expand
the
role
of
our
entities.
M
That's
really
the
reason
we're
here
today,
because
we're
looking
for
some
clarifications
to
some
of
the
some
of
the
trust
statutes
to
allow
us
to
continue
on
on
that
expansionary
path,
specifically
with
respect
to
in
individual
retirement
or
ira
accounts
that
are
now
sponsored
by
charles
schwab
and
company
our
broker
dealer.
M
Currently,
the
broker
dealer
is
required
to
qualify
under
the
internal
revenue
code
as
a
non-bank
custodian
and
that
carries
certain
regulatory
requirements
along
with
it,
which
apply
only
to
non-bank,
ira
custodians.
M
The
ira,
irs
rules
allow
a
bank
or
a
trust
company
to
act
as
a
custodian
of
an
ira
program
without
any
issues
so
because
of
those
regulatory
requirements
and
because
our
competitors,
most
notably
the
fidelities
and
the
vanguards
of
the
world,
use
a
different
structure
where
they
use
a
trust
or
trust
company
or
a
bank
charter
with
trust
powers
to
sponsor
their
ira
program.
We
are
tr.
We
are
attempting
to
make
that
conversion
here
using
one
of
our
nevada
entities.
M
So
it's
anticipated
if
we
get
these
changes,
that
that
would
help
us
facilitate
that
that
the
nevada
entity
that
serves
in
this
roles
will
sponsor
the
ira
program
for
irs
purposes
and
also
act
as
the
primary
custodian
for
the
assets
of
the
of
the
self-directed
ira
accounts
currently
custody
at
the
broker-dealer,
and
when
I
say
self-directed,
I
want
to
clarify
these
are
these
are
ira
accounts
that
are
invested
entirely
in
publicly
traded
brokerage
assets?
M
This
is
not
you
know,
there's
there's
some
negative
connotation
to
self-directed
iras
in
certain
certain
circles,
thinking
that
people
are
using
these
to
invest
in
businesses
and
and
precious
metals,
and
things
like
that.
There's
none
of
that
involved
with
this.
These
are
purely
broker.
Dealer
platforms,
financial
assets
that
these
iras
are
generally
invested
in
the
the
trust
company
or
the
and
or
excuse
me,
the
the
nevada
entity
would
not
be
engaged
in
a
fiduciary
role,
which
we
we
commonly
define
to
be
a
role
requiring
the
exercise
of
investment
or
other
discretion.
M
M
So
moving
on
to
the
the
bill,
the
draft
bill
really
addresses
two
objectives
that
that
we're
trying
to
we're
trying
to
clarify
number
one
that
ira
custodial
an
ira
custodial
relationship
is
a
non-fiduciary
role.
M
This
is
a
this
is
a
pretty
much
a
standard
position
under
federal
bank
and
trust
regulatory
law,
as
well
as
the
law
of
most
states.
M
M
The
statute.
On
this
point,
the
statute
excludes
from
the
definition
of
administrator
under
under
section
66
or
chapter
669,
a
trust
company
or
savings
bank
that
sponsors
a
custodial
ira
program
and
again
the
custodial
ira
program
is
one
where
we
do
not
accept
responsibility
for
investment
management
or
any
discretionary
authority,
and
also
an
affiliate
of
the
trust
company
or
savings
bank.
That
would
be
what
potentially
would
be
holding
assets
or
or
dealing
with
the
pro
or
the
assets
of
the
ira
account.
We
would
be
using,
as
schwab
usually
does.
M
We,
we
use
the
best
capabilities
we
can
across
our
many
affiliates
to
service
our
client.
So
some
of
the
activities
related
to
these
ira
accounts
will
be
performed
under
the
direction
of
the
trust
company
or
the
trust
bank
at
the
at
the
broker-dealer
level,
pursuant
to
inter-affiliate
agreements
that
we
are
required
to
have
as
a
matter
of
banking
law,
so
that
we
we've
also
asked
for
a
modification
on
the
definition
of
fiduciary
chapter
673.
M
M
M
The
rules
under
what's
referred
to
as
federal
regulation,
nine,
which
are
the
rules
governing
fiduciary
activities
of
federally
chartered
banks
and
the
rules
relating
to
proprietary
bank
deposits
and
collateralization
of
fiduciary
funds
invested
in
such
bank
deposits.
Under
those
rules,
we
would
like
to
have
those
rules
apply
to
nevada
savings
banks.
This
is
merely
an
expansion
of
what
you
have
already
done.
M
The
rules
relating
related
to
proprietary
bank
deposits
and
collateralization
have
been
already
adopted
in
nevada
for
bank
charters,
other
than
nevada
savings
banks
by
administrative
regulation,
nevada,
administrative
code,
60,
62
100,
and
so
we
think
that
this
is
just
an
expansion
of
what
has
already
been
established
as
the
policy
of
the
state.
With
respect
to
these
types
of
arrangements,
and
with
that
I
would
open
it
up
for
questions.
I
think
it's
fairly
simple.
What
we're
asking
to
do
and
we're
happy
to
add
anything
to
that
explanation.
A
Add
mr
brown
was
here,
madam
vice
chair,
to
just
help
answer
any
questions
or
mr
brown.
Okay,.
C
As
you
just
heard,
yeah
I'll
be
here
to
answer
questions
if.
O
You
have
them.
My
role
is
to
head
our
washington,
d.c
office
of
legislative
and
regulatory
affairs
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
might
relate
to
schwap.
I
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
I
think
I'd
like
to
just
so
that
I
can
totally
understand
this.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
so.
Last
session
we
had,
I
think
it
was
last
session-
might
have
been
the
session
before
we
had
a
lot
of
conversations
around
the
attorney
general's
bill
about
fiduciary
responsibilities.
M
Well,
I
I
I'm
not
entirely
familiar
with
that
bill,
but
I
think
you're
alluding
to
the
the
nevada
bill
where
there
was
some
effort
to
impose
certain
fiduciary
responsibilities
on
broker
dealers.
This
doesn't
generally
relate
to
the
operation
of
a
broker
dealer.
M
There
is
a
distinction
in
most
trust
businesses
between
a
fiduciary
business
and
what
they
call
a
custody
or
agency
business.
What
we're
talking
about
here
is
facilitating
a
custody
or
agency
business
and,
though,
in
a
custody
or
agency
business,
your
obligations
are
100
defined
by
contract.
M
We
are
not
under
a
discretionary
fiduciary
standard
to
act
in
in
the
best,
inter
act
in
in
a
discretionary
manner,
with
respect
to
the
investment
of
the
asset,
the
distribution
of
the
assets,
anything
of
that
nature.
It
is
purely
an
agency
capacity.
M
I
I
don't
think
it
it
it's
it
in
this
context,
it
creates
any
additional
risk.
Again.
These
accounts
are
100
directed
by
the
account
holders.
The
people
that
establish
these
ira
accounts,
where
the
trust
company
of
the
trust
bank
would
not
be
providing
investment
advice.
M
M
The
provisions
of
the
internal
revenue
code
dictate
what
we
can
and
can't
do
making
distributions
as
directed
and
providing
required
tax
reporting
services,
as
as
would
be
required
by
the
internal
revenue
code.
I
And
thank
you
very
much,
mr
walls,
for
for
clarifying
that.
It's
always
good
to
get
those
statements
on
the
record.
So
everyone
understands
exactly
what
everyone's
role
is
and
some
of
these
complicated
measures
that
and
and
investment
instruments
that
people
use
there's
there's
a
lot
of
them
out
there.
I'm
not
sure
I
could,
even
if
you
gave
me
four
or
five
cocktail
napkins,
I
don't
think
I
would
understand
that
so
with
that
committee
members.
Are
there
any
questions
from
any
other
committee
members
at
this
time
of
these
two
gentlemen.
C
Yes,
thank
you
vice
chair
carlton,
so
my
question
is
under
section
an
assemblywoman,
heidi
kasama
district
2.
under
section
2
number
six.
C
It
sounded
like
you
that
this
section
here
has
a
section
that
says
the
savings
bank
shall
not
allow
funds
awaiting
investment
or
distribution
to
remain
uninvested
and
undistributed
any
longer
than
is
reasonable
for
the
proper
management
of
the
fiduciary
count
and
consistent
with
the
click
of
the
law.
So
you
were
talking
about
a
fiduciary
or
a
more
of
the
ira
directed
accounts.
You
have
instructions
how
to
handle
that.
M
Sure,
I'm
glad
I'm
glad
to
answer
that
question,
because
it
brings
me
to
a
point
that
I
forgot
in
my
primary
presentation,
and
that
is
that
the
language
that
you
that
you
are
looking
at
is
actually
drawn
directly
from
the
the
federal
statute
which,
which
is
the
language
that
applies
to
other
nevada
bank
charters
currently,
but
this
bit
this
has
a
little
bit
wider
application
for
us,
because
we
we
do
have
accounts
in
charles
webb
trust
bank,
presently
that
are
directed
trustee
accounts
under
erisa,
which
are
deemed
generally
to
be
fiduciary
accounts
and
those
accounts
are
subject
to
these
requirements.
M
We
are
complying
with
those
requirements.
Now
we
we
started
complying
with
when
we
were
an
occ
bank
and
when
we
flipped
our
bank
over
to
a
nevada
charter,
we
had
to
go
to
the
fit
and
say
what
can
we
continue
to
follow
these
rules?
Because
there
was,
there
was
a
gap
in
the
in
the
regulatory
and
statutory
framework.
There
were
no
rules
applicable
to
savings
banks.
M
We
now
have
these
rules
in
place
and
and
again
these
are
the
rules
that,
for
for
cash,
investments
that
are
used
for
any
trust
company,
that's
occ,
regulated
that
are
used,
I
believe
for
other
nevada
charters
under
the
under
the
regulation
that
I
cited
to
you
earlier.
M
A
And
vice
chair
carlton,
if
I
could,
I
wanted
to
let
the
committee
know-
and
I
I
should
have
made
the
commentary,
but
we
also
have
somebody
within
nevada
fid
available
as
well
to
answer
questions.
I
I
Okay,
that's
fine.
We
can
get
our
questions
answered
as
we
move
through.
So
did
you
have
any
other
presenters?
Are
there
any
other
questions?
If
not
we'll
go
ahead
and
go
through
our
our
other
portions
of
the
bill?.
A
I
Okay,
thank
you.
We
always
want
to
make
sure
our
regulators
have
a
seat
at
the
table
when
we're
looking
at
these
things,
because
they
know
them
much
more
intimately
than
we
do
so.
I
just
always
want
to
make
sure
they're
involved.
So
with
that,
I
don't
see
any
other
questions
from
any
other
committee
members
at
this
time.
I
believe
oh
miss
considine,
I'm
sorry,
I
I
apologize.
F
Oh
no
worries.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,
so
I
just
had
a
couple
of
questions,
one
of
them,
if
I'm
understanding
all
of
this
properly,
that's
the
charles
schwab.
Iras
are
non-bank,
custodians
and
those
usually
have
regulatory
regulatory
requirements,
but
the
idea
of
this
is
to
not
have
those
regulatory
requirements.
So
my
question
is
what
what
would
those
regulatory
requirements
be.
M
How
that
worked,
the
reason-
those
and
it's
kind
of
kind
of
odd
in
the
context
of
schwab,
because
we
are
now
one
of
the
largest
broker
dealers
in
the
in
the
country,
but
those
rules
were
put
in
place
because
the
irs,
when
they
implemented
ira
accounts
back
in
the
1970s,
I
believe
felt
that
a
bank
or
a
trust
company
was
a
properly
regulated
properly
capitalized
entity
to
support
an
ira
program
and
a
broker
dealer
was
not
so
a
broker
dealer
was
was
required
to
meet
certain
other
requirements.
M
The
largest
one
is
actually
something
called
a
net
capital
requirement,
which
causes
us
to
to
hold
back
some
portion
of
our
of
our
our
capital
at
the
broker
dealer
that
we
could
be
able
to
put
to
use
for
for
a
higher
and
better
use,
and
we
have
to
hold
it
here.
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
our
competitors
are
not
using
this
model
and
they're
not
subject
to
that
requirement.
So
we
are
at
a
competitive
disadvantage
with
respect
to
that.
M
The
other
thing-
and
we
we've
been
actually
talking
a
little
bit
to
the
irs-
about
this
on
another
front
that
we
are
now
you
know
our
world
has
changed.
That's
why
we've
gone
from
being
a
broker-dealer-centered
business
to
a
financial
holding
company,
so
we
have
the
federal
reserve.
Looking
at
our
capitalization,
our
broker-dealer
is
subject
to
all
of
the
the
fed
requirements.
That's
subject
to
the
sec
requirements,
it's
subject
to
the
the
holding
company
being
required
to
be
a
source
of
strength.
M
In
the
event,
the
broker
dealer
has
some
financial
difficulty
highly
unlikely,
but
but
it
has
to
be
there,
so
we
are
in
a
highly
regulated
banking
environment
and
our
our
our
pitch
to
the
irs
has
been.
Why
do
we
schwab
need
to
do
this
when
we
have
all
these
other
capital
requirements
which
are
pretty
honorous
and
and
pretty
effective
in
ensuring
that
the
the
financial
institution
is
run
in
a
sound
and
prudent
manner?
M
So
that's
that's
where
we're
at,
but
there's
a
capital
requirement
for
that.
M
There's
some
there's
some
other
reporting
requirements
that
we
would
not
be
responsible
for,
but
again,
the
thinking
of
the
irs
statute
of
section
408
of
the
internal
revenue
code
was
that
a
banks
could
find
a
trust
company's
fine,
because
they're
regulated
entities,
their
their
their
capital,
is
being
monitored
by
regulatory
authorities,
whether
it's,
the
nevada,
fed,
whether
it's
the
fdic
in
the
case
of
trust
bank
along
with
the
fit
and
that
they're
they're
they
are,
they
are
more
than
capable
of
serving
in
this
capacity.
F
What
madam
chair
or
men
and
vice
chair?
Yes,
please
go
ahead.
Okay,
so
then,
if
I'm
understanding
this
properly
one
of
the
reason
or
a
couple
of
reasons,
those
regulations
would
require
holding
more
capital
that
you
couldn't
use
for
other
things,
reporting
requirements,
but
this
would
take
the
savings
bank
out
of
that.
So
my
question
is,
then:
what
does
that
mean
for
any
other
savings
banks
in
this
state?
What
does
that
change
for
anyone
else
outside
of
charles
schwab,.
M
Yeah
it
does,
it
doesn't
change
the
capitalization
required
of
the
savings
bank.
I'm
sorry
the
broker
we're
talking
about
the
capital
being
held
at
the
broker
dealer,
because
the
broker
dealer
is
a
sponsor
of
the
ira
program.
We
would
move
the
sponsorship
to
the
savings
bank
now
at
that
point,
it
would
be
up
to
the
fid
to
determine
because
they,
the
bank,
had
taken
on
this
additional
responsibility,
whether
they
would
they
they
might
require
us
to
put
up
more
capital,
that's
a
discretion
of
the
the
fid
once
they
get
their
arms
around.
M
F
M
I
believe
I
I
don't
know
for
sure,
and
I
would
I
would
validate
this
with
the
fid,
but
I
think
we
are
the
only
nevada
chartered
savings
bank.
At
the
present
time
we
were
the
first
one.
We
were
here
four
or
five
years
ago,
drafting
the
statute,
and
I
I
think
we
are
still
the
only
one
there
may
have
been
one
other,
but
I'm
not
sure,
but
that
doesn't
change
any
anything
with
nevada
this.
What
we're
talking
about
is
getting
relief
from
an
irs
imposed
obligation
that
they
would
place
on
the
broker
dealer.
J
I
I
E
D
Begin
good
afternoon,
chair
and
committee
members,
I
am
sandy
o'laughlin,
commissioner
of
the
financial
institutions
division.
I'm
here
today
to
testify
in
support
of
ab290.
This
bill
makes
changes
to
nrs
chapter
673
savings
banks
and
nrs
chapter
669
trust
companies
allowing
employer-sponsored
ira
investments.
D
D
D
Sorry
about
that,
this
is
san,
diego
lachlan,
for
the
record
at
this
time,
charles
schwab,
trust
bank
is
our
only
savings
bank
in
nevada,
so
it
would
really
only
affect
them
at
this
time.
I
E
D
Good
afternoon
vice
chair
carlton
and
members
of
the
assembly
committee
on
commerce
and
labor,
my
name
is
connor
kane
c-o-n-n-o-r-c-a-I-n
and
I'm
testifying
in
support
of
assembly
bill
290
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
bankers
association.
We
want
to
thank
chair
haudegee
for
bringing
this
bill
and
would
also
appreciate
your
support.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify.
I
Thank
you,
mr
kane
short
and
sweet.
That's
the
way
we
like
it.
Thank
you
very
much.
Next
person
in
support
broadcast
services,
care.
E
E
I
A
Thank
you
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
present
assembly
bill
290.
I
just
ask
for
your
support
and
consideration
of
the
bill.
Thank
you.
I
A
Thank
you
vice
chair,
carlton
committee's
always
in
good
hands
with
you
members.
The
last
item.
The
last
bill
on
our
agenda
today
is
assembly
bill
277.
So
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
277
and
I
believe
we
have
our
very
own
committee
member
assembly,
member
b
duran
here
to
present
the
bill.
Mr
and
when
you're
ready
the
floor
is
yours.
K
K
Madam
chair,
when
nevadas
are
involved
in
an
auto
motor
vehicle
or
motorcycle
accident,
their
only
focus
should
be
on
there.
It
should
be.
Is
their
recovery
getting
healthy
to
get
back
to
their
family
job
and
life?
Unfortunately,
I'm
all
too
familiar
with
the
reality
that
too
many
nevadans
do
not
have
the
health
coverage
they
need.
Consequently,
after
car
accident,
instead
of
following
all
medical
professional
recommendations,
the
vatins
ask
themselves.
K
K
If
that
single
mother,
like
many
nevadans,
does
not
have
adequate
medical
insurance
and
only
has
limited
liability
insurance.
She
will
then
depend
only
on
the
distracted
driver's
insurance
policy
to
cover
all
her
medical
expenses
understand,
understandably,
before
undergoing
any
medical
procedures,
the
single
mother
would
have
to
know
whether
or
not
the
distracted
driver's
insurance
policy
would
cover
it
under
current
law.
K
K
K
This
concludes
my
portion
of
the
presentation
of
assembly
bill
277,
chair.
With
your
permission,
I
would
like
to
turn
over
some
time
to
graham
galloway
with
the
nevada
justice
association,
to
share
the
background
details
for
the
measure
and
to
address
the
technical
aspects
of
the
bill
and
to
answer
any
questions.
There
may
be.
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
graham
galloway,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
justice
association.
First,
I'd
like
to
begin
by
thanking
assembly
woman
duran
for
the
opportunity
to
present
this
to
you.
As
she
indicated,
the
there
are
two
distinct
components
to
the
bill
in
section
one:
we're
addressing
or
we're
requesting
new
language
in
an
existing
statute
that
covers
medical
payments,
medical
benefits,
coverages
for
automobile
insurance.
O
In
section
two
we're
revisiting
a
bill
that
was
passed
in
2019,
sb
435,
which
is
a
bill
that
covers
the
exchange
of
medical
records
and
policy
limits
information.
We
learned,
after
the
passage
of
that
bill
in
2019
that
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
problem
with
some
of
the
carriers
interpreting
the
language
of
the
bill
and
we're
revisiting
it
to
clean
that
language
up,
so
that
there
won't
be
any
ambiguities,
it
won't
be
any
conflicts
or
any
any
problems.
O
So
let
me
begin
by
talking
about
the
proposal
or
the
changes.
In
section
one
section,
one
covers
medical
payments,
medical
benefits
coverage.
What
we
often
just
call
our
shorthand
med
pay.
Medpay
coverage
is
a
wonderful
coverage.
It's
an
optional
coverage,
but
that's
mandatory
required
to
be
offered.
O
The
mandatory
requirement
requires
a
carrier
to
offer
at
least
a
minimum
of
one
thousand
dollars
in
medical
coverage
or
med
pay
coverage.
We
often
see
amounts
our
coverages
of
one
thousand,
two
thousand
five
thousand
ten
thousand.
Rarely
do
we
see
anything
beyond
ten
thousand
in
med
pay
coverage.
So
what
we're
talking
about
here
is
small
numbers
and
it's
a
cheap,
affordable
coverage.
O
I
would
encourage
everyone
listening
today
to
review
their
policy
and
take
a
look
at
it
and
get
as
much
medpay
coverage
as
possible,
because
it's
a
coverage
that
directly
benefits
you
yourself,
it's
not
based
on
fault,
so
that
if
you
were
in
a
crash
that
somebody
else
caused,
it
would
kick
in
or
it
would
cover
you
if
you
caused
the
crash.
It
covers
you
if
you
run
your
car
into
a
telephone
pole
or
an
embankment
or
something
like
that.
It
covers
you.
It
covers
you
if
you're
on
a
bicycle,
it
covers
you.
O
O
You
would
send
your
bills
and
records
to
your
insurance
carrier
and
they
would
process
them
and
they
would
pay
either
your
health
care
provider.
They
would
pay
you
yourself
or-
or
your
attorney
recently,
with
increasing
free
increase,
increasingly
frequency,
increasing
frequency.
Sorry,
we
see
insurance
carriers
now
disputing
the
amount
of
what
they,
what
they're
going
to
pay.
O
So
the
section
one
of
ab277
requires
a
company
to
base
the
payment
under
the
medpay
coverage
on
the
usual
and
customary
charges,
not
on
some
third-party
vendors
belief
of
what
the
coverage
or
what
the
bill
should
be.
My
most
recent
experience
was,
I
received
a
letter
from
a
carrier
that
said
that
their
kentucky
third
party
vendors
said
that
the
local
bills,
which
were
customary
and
usual,
were
not
customary
unusual
and
we
ended
up
having
to
file
a
lawsuit
just
to
get
an
additional
two
thousand
dollars
worth
of
med
pay.
That
was
at
dispute.
O
So
this
makes
it
clear
on
how
the
med
pay
benefits
should
be
paid
section
two
revisits
a
bill
that
was
passed
in
2019
ab
435,
and
that
involves
this
trade-off
to
use
a
frequently
popular
term.
Now,
quid
pro
quo,
where
an
insurance
company
gets
medical
records
and
medical
bills
updated
on
a
regular
basis,
and
in
exchange
you
claim
it,
the
injured
party
finds
out
what
the
policy
limits
are.
The
claim
the
adverse's
policy
limits
a
just
a
brief
little
historical
background,
for
this,
I
think,
is
appropriate
in
1995.
O
O
At
the
last
moment
and
being
told
you
got
two,
you
have
two
days
to
process
these
and
pay
us
and
they
proposed
a
statute,
a
bill
that
ultimately
became
a
statute
wherein
that
claimants
in
a
personal
injury
setting,
would
be
required
to
update
the
medical
records
and
bills
every
90
days
to
the
adverse
insurance
company
so
that
they
knew
they
they
would
know
what
was
going
on.
They
could
adequately
set
their
reserves
and
exchange
the
claimant
and
or
the
claimant's
attorney
would
receive
policy
limits
information.
O
This
worked
really
well
for
20
years
until
2015,
when
farmers
came
back
to
the
legislature
and
they
were
not
happy
with
the
quick
quote,
but
pro
quo
weren't
happy
with
the
bargain
weren't
happy
with
the
exchange,
and
they
had
a
bill
at
that
point,
sponsored
by
then
senator
roberson,
which
effectively
just
eliminated
the
exchange
it
wiped
out.
Nrs
690b
024,
which
was
the
statutory
embodiment
of
what
now
is
or
was
sb
430,
no,
whatever
the
whatever
the
bill
was.
At
that
time.
I
apologize.
O
I
can't
remember
the
bill
number,
but
it
wiped
out
the
statute
so
for
the
past,
or
for
four
years
up
until
2019
claimants,
weren't
entitled
to
get
the
the
information
about
policy
limits
that
they
needed
in
2019,
we
sponsored
sb
435,
which
was
approved,
but
unfortunately,
some
of
the
language
there
has
been
interpreted
to
allow
insurance
companies
to
escape
to
escape
their
obligation
to
providing
policy
limits
information.
O
So
the
second
section
of
ab277
simply
is
a
cleanup
of
the
of
sb
435
from
2019
and
makes
it
clear
that
claimants
are
now
entitled
to
receive
policy
limit
information.
So
these
are.
These
are
two
distinct
concepts
but
they're
basic
they're,
very
simple
and
they're
for
the
benefit
of
all.
Frankly,
I
think
the
exchange
of
information
to
the
insurance
companies
benefits
them
and
as
claimants,
you
get
the
the
benefit
of
knowing
how
much
insurance
is
out
there.
O
The
question
that
was
asked
in
2019
that
probably
be
asked
again
today:
why
is
it
important
to
get
that
information?
Well,
then,
a
claimant
is
would
have
information
will
know
how
much
coverage
is
out
there.
So
if
they
have
ongoing
medical
treatment
or
need
ongoing
medical
treatment,
they
know
what
they
can
afford.
O
What's
what's
going
to
be
covered
and
what's
not
going
to
be
covered,
so
that's
the
overview
of
the
the
two
provisions
in
this
bill
and
I
thank
the
committee
for
allowing
me
the
opportunity
to
present
it
to
you
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
arise.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation,
assembly,
member
durand
and
mr
galloway.
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
to
questions
from
the
committee,
but
before
we
go
to
the
committee,
I
just
I
want
to
touch
on
something
that
you
said,
mr
galloway,
so
the
section
of
this
bill.
I
think
it's
section
two
step
four.
A
So
this
is
something
that
was
prior
law
prior
to
2015,
and
then
you
said
that
senate
bill
in
2015
stripped
the
language
away.
So
this
isn't
something
new.
This
is
something
that
existed
in
law
before.
O
O
Then
there
was
a
four-year
period
where
the
statute
was
completely
deleted,
from
the
nevada,
revised
statutes
and
in
2019
we
went
back
to
we.
We
brought
forth
sb
435
to
bring
us
back
to
where
we
were
prior
to
2015,
but
the
language
was
slightly
modified
in
2019,
so
that
created
a
an
argument
by
some
insurers
that
they
don't
have
to
comply
with
the
requirement
of
giving
over
the
policy
limits.
A
O
Madam
chair,
graham
galloway,
again,
yes
and
no,
it
brings
us
back
to
substantially
similar
language,
but
it's
a
little
more
clearer
that
the
clearer
about
the
obligations
imposed
by
on
the
insurers
and
on
the
claimants,
the
original
language
from
1995
through
2015,
I
think,
is
susceptible
to
the
same
interpretation
that
some
carriers
are
now
giving
the
language
from
2019.
O
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
appreciate
that's
a
good
transition
actually
to
my
questions
in
regards
to
section
two
sub
section:
four
and
I'd
like
to
just
follow
up.
If
I
may,
mr
galloway,
on
the
the
point
you
just
made,
that
for
20
years
there
was
an
exchange
of
information
and
that
this
proposal,
as
it
reads,
feels
one
way,
so
the
exchange
only
goes
one
way
where
there's
a
requirement
to
disclose
the
limits,
but
there's
not
the
mutual
exchange
of
information
for
those
medical
records.
Did
I
hear
that
correctly.
O
Assemblyman
our
assemblywoman
told
graham
galloway
on
behalf
of
the
nja,
yes,
and
no
the
I
I
I
think,
that's
my
fault,
I
don't
think
I
was
particularly
clear.
There
still
is
a
mutual
requirement.
O
Both
sides
of
this
equation,
I
shouldn't
say
mutual:
there
is
a
requirement
of
disclosure
on
both
sides
if
a
carrier
under
the
new
language,
if
a
carrier
request
an
insurance
company,
requests,
medical
records
and
bills
or
an
authorization
that
allows
them
to
obtain
the
medical
records
or
bills,
claimant
has
to
give
that
to
them.
If
a
claimant
requests
the
policy
limits,
the
carrier
or
insurance
company
has
to
give
them
that
so
they're
not
linked
together,
but
there
is
a
mutual
obligation.
O
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair
follow-up.
Yes,
follow-up,
assemblymember
tools,
so
thank
you.
That's
perfect,
because
that
dive
dives
into
my
question
about
the
last
line
in
subsection
four,
which
was
that
the
insurer
may
but
is
not
required
to
obtain
the
consent
or
permission
of
the
party
covered
by
the
policy
for
the
disclosure
of
the
policy
limits,
and
so
I
think,
if
I'm
hearing
you
correctly,
that
the
the
situation
you
just
explained
in
terms
of
exchange
of
information
required
that
policyholder
to
agree
consent
to
release
that
information.
J
That
was
the
process
that
was
put
in
place
for
for
each
the
insurer,
as
well
as
the
representative
of
the
of
the
insured.
But
this
takes
out
that
permission
step
and
if
I'm
reading
that
correctly
and
could
you
just
explain
more,
why
we're
including
that
okay.
O
We
often
deal
with
california
representatives
who,
although
they're,
adjudicating
or
or
adjusting
claims
in
nevada,
they
still
have
a
california
background
and
in
california
there
is
a
statute
that
requires
the
insured
to
give
permission
for
release
of
the
policy
limits
information.
We
don't
have
that.
We've
never
had
that.
There's
never
been
a
requirement.
This
language
is
just
to
head
that
off
and
make
it
clear
that
that's
not
required
now.
If
a
company
wants
to
ask
permission
of
their
insured,
they
can
but
it's
not
required
and
the
the
exchange
of
the
medical
records
and
bills.
O
That's
through
the
claimant
and
the
claimants,
the
claimant
either
authorizes
it
or
their
attorney
authorizes
it.
The
individual's
attorney
authorizes
it.
So
that's
with
their
permission.
So
it's
just
a
preventative
clause
or
language
in
there
to
prevent
that
from
being
raised
as
an
issue,
I
view
it
as
just
anticipating
the
next
move
on
a
chessboard.
J
O
J
Thank
you,
I'm
just
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
this,
and
I
really
appreciate
you
answering
the
questions,
so
we
this
language
that
the
the
you
know,
essentially
the
information
can
be
released
about
policy
limits
with
or
without
consent.
O
Individual,
graham
galloway,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
justice
association,
assemblywoman,
told
us,
the
releasing
of
the
medical
records
and
bills
is
inherently
done
by
consent,
because
either
the
lawyer
or
the
claimant
releases
that
information,
so
their
consent's
kind
of
built
into
it.
So
there's
no
com,
no
language,
that's
comparative
to
the
language
in
subsection,
four
regarding
the
insurance
company
going
to
get
consent
from
their
insurer
to
release
the
policy
limits.
O
So
just
by
definition,
when
you
give
up
your
records
to
the
insurance
company,
you're,
consenting
and
and
the
way
the
statute's
written,
I
don't
think
you
can
refuse
to
consent.
The
statute's
written
that
when
a
company
asks
to
claim
it
for
records
and
bills,
they
have
to
provide
that
there's,
there's
really
not
an
option.
J
F
Thank
you,
chair
and
my
question
is
sort
of
a
follow-up
from
assemblymember
on
tolls.
So
just
so,
I
can.
F
F
We,
as
lawyers
are
obligated
to
give
the
medical
records
upon
request
by
the
insurance
company.
Do
I
read
that
right.
F
F
F
Do
you
foresee
cases
to
where
the
insurance
company
is
not
going
to
release
that
policy
limit
because
of
either
you
know,
maybe
saying
they
can't
get
a
hold
of
their
insured
or
you
know
they're
waiting
for
their
insured
response?
I
hope
my
question
makes
sense.
O
Graham
galloway,
on
behalf
of
the
nja
assembly
member
marzoli,
your
question
makes
perfect
sense,
and
the
answer
to
that
is
that
this
language
is
anticipatory.
O
That
has
not
been
an
argument
raised
by
nevada,
adjusters
nevada
companies
on
occasion,
because
we
deal
with
a
lot
of
claims
representatives
who
are
domiciled
in
california,
they've
raised
it,
and
then
we
have
to
take
the
time
to
point
out
that
they're
not
practicing
in
california
or
adjusting
a
claim
in
california
but
they're
in
nevada,
and
that
in
nevada
there
is
no
such
requirement.
O
So
the
language
here
is
just
anticipating.
Again,
I
don't
mean
to
be
flippant,
but
it's
like
a
chess
move
that
we
hope.
We
hope
that
this
won't
be
raised.
So
we
put
this
language
in
there
to
make
it
clear
that
you
can't
raise
that
argument.
Because
that's
what
happens
if
you
deal
with
california
cases-
and
I
I
I
practice
in
california-
and
it's
it's-
it's
amazing-
how
often
that
the
insured
doesn't
give
permission.
O
So
you
never
end
up
with
that
information
in
california
and,
frankly,
you're
advising
your
client
with
with
only
half
the
information
you
really
need
to
have
to
properly
advise
it.
So
the
short
answer
to
your
question
is:
is
that
I
anticipate
that
might
come
up
and
that's
why
that
language
was
put
in
there
or
placed
in
there.
F
Thank
you
for
that
answer.
Mr
galloway.
Follow-Up
chair
really
quickly.
Yes,
follow-up
assembly,
member
marzola,
please
thank
you.
Do
you
think
that
maybe
you
would
make
it
cleaner
if
we
were
able
to
take
out
that
sentence,
so
just
like
us,
as
lawyers
would
be
required
to
give
the
medical
records
upon
request
that
the
automobile
insurance
would
be
required
to
provide
us
with
the
policy
limit
upon
request.
O
Galloway
on
behalf
of
the
nja
assembly,
member
marzola-
yes,
as
I
indicated
earlier,
this
wasn't
necessarily
language
that
I
proposed.
So
if
it,
if
it
had
to
be
removed,
I
think
it
could
be
severed
from
the
rest
of
the
bill
and
do
no
harm
to
the
intent
and
purpose
of
the
bill.
O
I
just
would
hate
to
have
to
be
back
here
in
2023
to
add
this
back
in
in
the
event
that
some
enterprising
claims,
person
or
insurance
company
decides
that
maybe
that
is
something
that
they
have
to
have,
but
under
existing
law,
they're
not
required
to
do
that.
So
yes,
this
this,
could
this
could
be
considered
to
be
taken
out
or
removed.
C
Thank
you
cheer.
My
question
relates
to
section
one:
three:
where
we
have
the
usual
and
customary
charges.
C
Why
are
we
not
using
the
word
actual
so
if
somebody's
foot
is
broken
and
it
maybe
that
costs
more
to
fix
than
the
usual
and
customary
for
whatever
reason
it?
Why
are
we
not
because
that
just
seems
now
we
have
to
track
what's
usual
and
customary,
why
don't
we
just
use
actual
that
seems
pretty
straightforward.
O
O
The
the
language
used
was
it
was,
it
was
difficult
to
come
up
with
and
so
actual
might
be
a
good
alternative.
It.
C
A
E
E
B
All
right
good
afternoon,
chair
audigy
and
members
of
the
commerce
and
labor
committee,
my
name
is
jesse
wadhams
j-e-s-s-e
w-a-d-h-a-m-s,
with
the
law
firm
of
black
and
whatems,
representing
the
nevada
insurance
council.
We
are
opposed
to
ab277
as
written
with
regard
to
section
one
dealing
with
med
pay.
We
have
a
a
couple
of
concerns
there,
particularly
with
the
language
kind
of
disgusted
and
usual
and
customary
component.
B
That's
not
really
a
known
or
defined
term,
as
you
guys
have
heard.
Part
of
the
other
issue
is
that
there
is
a
current
body
of
law
with
regard
to
med
pay
in
in
a
particular
situation,
with
with
the
hospitals
and
with
other
providers
of
health
care,
and
that
that
that
law
is
now
codified,
it
came
from
2017
and
that
was
codified
now
at
nrs449a
and
this
process
that
would
be
contemplated
by
ab277
kind
of
creates
some
some
confusion
there.
B
So
we
we
would
want
to
chat
with
the
sponsor
about
cleaning
that
that's
getting
some
clarity
around
that.
With
regard
to
section
two,
obviously
you
we
have
discussed
policy
disclosure
limits
over
the
course
of
multiple
sessions,
and
you,
and
for
those
of
you
who
were
on
judiciary,
have
certainly
been
a
part
of
that.
I
do
want
to
focus
actually
on
on
what
that
disclosure,
actually
particularly
the
component
of
the
disclosure.
The
declaration
page
means,
as
we
know,
all
of
us
with
cars
must
have
insurance
and
the
insurer.
B
We
pay
our
insurer
to
defend
us
that
there's
a
whole
body
of
law
in
in
nevada.
That
requires
the
insurer
to
have
a
duty
to
defend
so
that
declaration
page
contains
a
lot
of
information.
I
wouldn't
look
back
at
mine,
it's
not
only
my
name,
my
address
my
wife's
name,
all
of
the
cars
that
we
have
the
vin
numbers.
If
and
if
my
kids
were
slightly
older,
it
would
include
their
names.
It
includes
a
lot
of
information
that
is
personal
insensitive
and
we
actually
have
another
body
of
law.
B
Nrs603A
that
looks
at
those
that
a
lot
of
that
information
and
makes
it
private.
So
we
would
want
to
work
with
the
the
sponsor
and,
with
the
with
the
proponents,
to
clarify
that
again,
I
think
the
questions
with
regard
to
that
disclosure
and
whether
or
not
the
individual
has
the
right
to
prohibit
disclosure.
I
think
that's
an
important
policy
consideration
and
I
think
one
worthy
of
having
because,
as
noted,
the
policy
doesn't
belong
to
the
insurer,
it
emblogs
to
me
as
the
insured
and
my
information
will
be
disclosed.
B
A
Thank
you,
mr
waddens.
I'm
glad
you
were
able
to
make
it
on.
You
know
you
had
a
little
technical
difficulties
right
at
the
beginning,
members,
okay,
it
doesn't
look
like
there's
any
questions,
so
we
will
take
the
next
caller
in
opposition.
E
B
Thank
you,
chair,
doug
harris
for
farmers
insurance.
We
are
opposed
to
this
bill
under
section
one.
The
the
language
does
not
contemplate
those
providers
that
may
charge
less
than
what
a
usual
and
customary
charge
would
be.
B
It
also
frankly
requires
the
payments
to
be
deposited
into
the
attorney's
account,
which
likely
will
then
be
taken
and
used
to
negotiate
those
bills
further,
thus
creating
a
greater
windfall
we're
no
longer
paying
for
the
amount
of
the
bills
we're
paying
for
an
arbitrary
amount.
That
is
not
necessarily
what
is
actually
incurred.
B
E
Queue
caller
with
the
last
three
digits
of
nine
zero.
Two,
please
press
star,
excuse,
please
slowly
stay
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes
and
we
begin.
M
E
B
A
lot
of
people
don't
know
this,
but
state
farm
is
a
mutual
insurance
company
and
therefore
the
the
holders
of
of
the
policies
are
are
co-owners
of
the
company
and
for
that
reason,
protection
of
the
privacy
of
citizens
at
this
time,
including
the
the
policyholders
of
state
farm,
is
a
paramount
policy
consideration
in
this
country,
section
four
of
section
two
of
the
bill
where
it
requires
the
release
of
an
entire
declarations,
page
with
a
lot
of
sensitive
information
that
mr
wadhams
already
talked
about
is
entirely
irrelevant
to
the
issue
at
hand,
and
it's
completely
unnecessary
to
establish
one
single
fact,
and
that
is
how
much
insurance
does
the
the
person
have.
B
So
that's
one
concern
that
state
farm
has
to
protect
its
policyholders.
The
other.
The
other
thing
is
also
that
I'd
like
to
mention
is
also
in
section
four
section,
two
of
the
bill
and
that's
this
disclosure
of
policy
limits
and,
and
it
should
be
irrelevant
to
how
much
a
claimant
is
owed
to
be
made
whole.
B
B
A
A
K
Sorry
about
that.
Thank
you,
chair
outage
and
committee
members
for
allowing
us
to
present
assembly
bill
277
bill
helps
to
streamline
the
personal
injury
claims
process
after
a
motor
vehicle
accident.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
any
stakeholders
for
any
proposed
amendments
and
I
would
appreciate
your
support
of
ab277.
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
duran.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill.
277
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
public
comment.
While
we
are
waiting
for
those
listening
over
the
intern,
while
we
are
giving
time
for
those
listening
over
the
internet
time
to
call
in
I'm
going
to
read
through
our
public
comment
housekeeping
script,
I
would
like
to
remind
those
president
that
the
period
for
public
comment
is
an
opportunity
to
discuss
general
matters
that
fall
within
the
purview
of
this
committee.
The
public
has
already
been
given
time
to
support
or
oppose
specific
legislation.
A
We
open
and
close
hearings
on
bills
so
that
we
establish
a
record
of
the
public
testimony
on
the
bill.
Therefore,
public
comment
is
not
intended
to
be
a
continuation
of
a
bill
hearing
I'd
like
to
remind
the
public
listening
that
we
do
limit
public
comments
to
two
minutes
and
please
address
your
remarks
to
issues
that
fall
within
jurisdiction
of
commerce
and
labor.
If
your
remarks,
if
your
remarks
are
issues
over
which
this
committee
has
no
jurisdiction,
I
will
have
you
redirect
your
remarks
or
terminate
them
be
respectful
of
the
committee
members
and
other
witnesses.