►
From YouTube: 6/1/2023 - Legislative Commission
Description
This is the second meeting in Calendar Year 2023. Please see the revised agenda for details.
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
A
A
Our
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
item
two
public
comment.
We
will
be
accepting
public
comment
from
persons
here
in
the
legislative
building
in
Carson,
City
and
then
Grant
Sawyer
and
then
also
folks
on
the
phone.
There
will
be
a
second
period
of
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
So
if
you'd
like
to
hold
your
public
comment
till
the
end,
you
can
do
that
as
well.
We
are
going
to
limit
public
comment
to
two
minutes
and
I
am
going
to
time
just
to
be
fair
and
whatever
your
position
is.
A
I
will
tell
you
when
you
reach
your
two
minutes
and
ask
you
to
please
wrap
up
and
due
to
time
constraints,
we
are
going
to
be
limiting
the
total
time
limit
of
public
comment
to
30
minutes
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
and
30
minutes
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
and
I'll
try
to
alternate
among
Grant
Sawyer.
Excuse
me
the
legislative
building,
Grant
Sawyer
and
the
phones.
A
C
Good
afternoon,
chair
Yeager
members
of
the
commission
for
the
record
Paul
meratkin
Senior,
vice
president
gum
Affairs
for
the
Vegas
chamber,
the
chamber
isn't
posed
to
regulation
053-20.
As
many
of
you
know,
the
chamber
and
many
of
its
trade
Association
Partners
continue
to
have
significant
concerns
with
these
proposed
regulations,
since
they
were
first
brought
in
2020
and
the
brought
us
to
the
regulations
and
what
I
was
trying
to
solve.
We
have
stated
that
the
broadness
cannot
be
applied
to
all
Industries
and
the
solutions
develop
regulations
specific
to
each
industry.
C
The
last
time
we
discussed
under
the
previous
legislative
commission
was
2021-2021,
and
those
concerns
have
remain
to
this
day.
This
regulation
frame
has
not
been
adjusted
or
immense.
The
last
meeting
18
months
ago,
as
you
previously
stated,
as
we
have
previously
stated,
these
broad
regulations
on
labor
conditions
are
not
simple
and
attempting
to
have
one
unit
of
approach
for
Nevada
is
not
feasible
from
the
chambers
perspective.
We
believe
these
regulations
will
be
complicated,
burdensome
and
confusing,
because
each
industry
is
different
and
will
need
to
respond
differently
to
properly
comply.
C
In
all
reality,
we
do
not
know
how
we
will
regulate
personal
behavior
and
decisions
that
happen
off
the
clock
or
how
to
obtain
such
as
information
from
employees
or
to
train
them
is
also
important,
as
many
of
you
know
that
the
federal
OSHA
is
currently
in
the
rule.
Making
process
regarding
heat
mitigation
standards-
and
we
had
previously
had
conversations
in
SB,
427
Federal
shot-
is
actively
working
on
the
development's
new
standards.
Also
many
times
Collective
Bargains
address
worker
safety
conditions
that
are
negotiated
specifically
as
industry.
C
That's,
why
chamber
believes
that
such
a
wide
approach,
as
will
not
work
as
drafted,
and
when
you
develop
specific
industry
regulations,
we
believe
that
Solutions
directly,
we
believe
the
solutions
directly
work
with
OSHA
to
work
with
the
business
Community
to
address
industry-specific
regulations
and
bring
it
back
to
this
body
approval.
We
are
asking
for
that
and
we
will
make
that
commitment
to
resolve
those
concerns
on
industry
level,
one
by
one.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
today.
A
D
Mr
chair
Jesse
Wadhams,
with
the
law
firm
of
black
and
watams
here,
also
representing
Vegas
chamber
I,
wanted
to
express
some
of
the
procedural
due
process
concerns.
We
have
with
regulation
zero,
five,
three
dash
20.
regulation.
That
regulation
was
sent
to
LCB
for
initial
drafting
May
1st
of
2023
years
ago.
D
The
regulation
was
adopted
by
Nevada
OSHA
on
October
of
2021,
and
the
legislative
commission
reviewed
the
regulation
December
21st
2021
527
days
ago,
article
3
section
1,
subsection
2
of
the
Nevada
constitution
and
NRS
233b
0675
obviously
provide
for
legislative
commission
to
review
regulations
to
determine
Conformity
with
the
grant
of
authority
given
to
the
agency,
and
it
was
stated
in
December
of
2021
that
that
media
that
that
legislative
commission
would
defer
action
to,
hopefully
the
next
January
2022
meeting.
D
Obviously
deferral
of
a
regulation
under
any
definition
of
equity
in
latches
does
not
mean
527
days.
Nrs
233b
gives
a
number
of
additional
Provisions
which
indicate
that
the
regulation
would
have
expired
by
limitation.
For
instance,
an
rs-233b
040
sub
4
requiring
the
agency
to
finalize
adoption
within
two
years
of
the
initial
submission
NRS
233b0673.
The
legislative
commission
was
required
to
review
the
regulation
at
its
next
scheduled
meeting.
Equity
would
certainly
dictate
that
the
next
meeting
is
not
17
months
later
and
arguably
233b067
sub
6.
A
E
You
Mr
Speaker
Brian,
Walker,
b-r-y-a-n-w-a-c-h-t-e-r
senior,
vice
president
of
the
retail
association
of
Nevada.
This
regulation,
while
well-intentioned,
imposes
a
significant
and
administrative
and
financial
burden
on
employers,
especially
small
businesses,
which
may
not
have
the
resources
to
implement
the
very
detailed
program,
trainings
and
monitoring
systems
that
are
required.
This
is
going
to
discourage
job
creation
and
business
growth
in
Nevada.
The
regulation
requires
employers
to
monitor
personal
risk
factors
for
heat
illness,
including
age,
Health,
prescription,
medication,
abuse,
nicotine
use,
caffeine,
use
and
alcohol
use.
E
This
invasive
requirement
can
be
seen
as
a
breach
of
an
employee's
privacy
rights
and
could
result
in
potential
legal
ramifications.
The
requirement
for
employers
to
monitor
the
acclimization
of
employees
could
lead
to
subjective
assessments
resulting
in
a
potential
misuse
or
misinterpretation,
which
is
also
going
to
impact
employees
and
employers.
E
Businesses
that
depend
on
outdoor
labor,
such
as
Agriculture
and
construction
will
be
significantly
impacted
by
this
regulation,
especially
for
our
small
businesses
who
engage
in
that
kind
of
work
where
they
do
not
control
the
premises.
The
property
think
a
landscaper
who
goes
to
your
house
in
order
to
do
conduct
certain
Services
they're,
not
responsible,
nor
they
have
the
ability
to
make
changes
to
your
physical
surroundings
and
that's
going
to
be
difficult.
E
While
training
on
heat
illness
is
important.
It's
not
clear
whether
mandatory
training
for
all
employees
is
the
most
efficient
way
to
address
the
issue
and
a
more
targeted
approach
could
certainly
be
potentially
more
effective
and
less
resource
intensive
and,
lastly,
the
regulation
mandates.
Employers
are
to
ensure
that
an
emergency
responders
can
reach
the
work
site
while
safety
is
Paramount.
F
Thank
you,
Mr
chair
committee
members,
Misty
Grimmer,
representing
the
Nevada
Resort
Association,
I,
won't
repeat
a
lot
of
what
what
what
Mr
muradkin
and
the
others
have
said,
but
we
do
have
the
same
concerns
about
the
the
broadness
of
this
reg
and
that
it
applies
both
indoor
and
outdoor.
As
far
as
we
can
read
it,
there
are
several
things
in
there
as
they
mentioned
the
personal
risk
factor
and
how
we
are
supposed
to
determine.
That
is
very
much
in
question.
There's
a
couple
of
other
things.
F
One
of
the
things
the
reg
dictates
is
that
you
monitor
the
employee
for
the
first
14
days,
I'm,
not
sure
what
happens
after
that
14
days,
if
it
appears
that
the
employee
can't
do
the
job.
So
that's
a
question
in
our
minds.
F
Another
thing
is
determining
when
an
employee
might
sweat
more
than
normal
I'm,
not
sure
how
that
how
we're
supposed
to
factor
things
like
that
into
into
our
day-to-day
operations
and
I
would
also
and
I,
think
I
need
to
go
back
to
my
people,
including
and
get
more
information
on
this,
but
also
with
respect
to
how
this
reg
would
interact
with
our
cbas,
because
a
lot
of
this
is
negotiated
in
in
our
cbas
and
the
safety
measures
that
go
with
those.
F
So
we're
more
than
happy
to
sit
with
the
agency
and
and
really
work
on
this.
It
does
need
to
be
it.
You
know
it
does
need
to
have
some
consideration
for
for
different
types
of
businesses,
so
we
would
encourage
you
to
decline
this
reg
at
this
point
and
send
us
back
to
the
drawing
board.
A
G
You
thank
you
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee
Josh
Hicks,
with
McDonald
Chrono,
on
behalf
of
the
Nevada
homebuilders
Association,
composed
of
the
Southern
Nevada
homebuilders
Association,
and
the
Builders
Association
of
Northern
Nevada.
The
home
building
industry
has
been
building
homes
in
Nevada's
hot
climate
for
a
long
time
and
know
how
to
manage
heat.
When
we
went
through
the
regulatory
process
that
that
you've
heard
about
on
this
rig,
we
received
data
from
OSHA
with
respect
to
heat,
illness,
complaints
in
the
construction
industry.
They
received
30
heat
in
heat,
related
complaints
over
five
year
five-year
period.
G
G
The
opposition
today
is
not
because
of
a
disregard
for
heat
mitigation
or
the
seriousness
of
it.
It's
actually
the
contrary.
Heat
mitigation
is
something
this
industry
is
familiar
with
and
has
done
a
very
good
job
in
managing
over
the
years.
The
low
incidence
rate
I
just
talked
about
bears
that
out.
G
Nevada
employers
are
already
required
by
law,
state
and
federal
to
provide
a
safe
workplace,
including
the
provision
of
drinking
water.
Bad
actors
can
already
be
investigated
and
punished,
but
this
regulation
we
see,
is
unnecessary
for
the
vast
majority
of
good
actors
and
only
creates
unneeded
compliance
challenges.
Weird
your
opposition.
Thank
you.
H
Good
afternoon,
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I'm
Paul
Enos
I'm,
the
CEO
of
the
Nevada
Trucking
Association,
and
we're
here
today
to
oppose
regulation
053-20
for
many
of
the
same
reasons
that
have
been
stated
by
our
friends:
Mr
watams
and
Mr
muradkin
with
the
Las
Vegas
chamber.
H
Trucking
industry
is
very
diverse
and
our
employees
are
remote.
Trying
to
monitor
what
is
happening
to
that
driver
who
is
out
on
a
route
who
you
may
not
see
for
days
at
a
time
is
extremely
difficult.
Monitoring
prescriptions,
alcohol,
caffeine
intake.
Those
are
all
difficult
things
for
us
to
do
too.
H
I
Thank
you,
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission.
My
name
is
Tom
Clark
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
Reno
Sparks
Chamber
of
Commerce
I'm,
not
going
to
belabor
a
lot
of
the
issues
that
were
already
brought
forward
today.
I'll
keep
it
way
under
my
two
minutes,
say
ditto,
specifically
the
issues
that
Mr
Wadhams
brought
forward
as
far
as
how
this
regulation
was
promulgated
and
brought
forward
to
you.
Thank
you.
Mr
chair.
J
J
Look
safety
on
the
construction
drop
site
is,
is
Paramount,
ensuring
the
safest
work
environment
possible
is
critical
to
having
having
a
strong
Workforce
and
a
successful
company.
I've
participated
in
the
workshops
with
OSHA
when
they
were
occurring,
and
this
regulation
has
put
forward
zero
five.
Three
two
zero
wasn't:
quite
there
wasn't
quite
to
the
place
where
there
was
a
consensus
spot
to
it,
and
there
was
a
reason
it
was
deferred,
and
that
was
for
that
reason
we
were
supposed
to
go
back
and
continue
to
work
on
it.
Those
meetings
never
occurred.
J
The
reality
is,
is
that
OSHA
has
the
authority
to
regulate
heat
illness
under
their
general
duty
clause.
Heat
is
a
known
hazard
in
the
construction
industry
and
therefore
is
a
hazard
that
is
regulated
by
OSHA
under
that
provision
of
the
law.
The
construction
industry
has
developed
best
practices
and
we
should
adhere
to
those
practices,
When
developing
regulation,
that
that
construction
is
going
to
be
subjected
to.
For
this
reason,
I
request
that
this
committee
turn
down
these
regulations.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker
good,
to
see
you
for
the
record.
Trey
Abney
representing
the
2
000
member
businesses
of
nfib
in
Nevada,
National
Federation
of
Independent
Business
I,
usually
have
a
lot
of
profound
things
to
say:
I
will
shorten
this
up
considerably,
say
ditto
and
me
too.
Certainly
a
broad-based
regulation
like
this
does
not
fit
for
the
2000
member
businesses
in
my
organization
that
are
in
every
kind
of
industry
in
this
state.
So
we
urge
you
to
not
process
this
regulation.
Thank
you.
Mr
Speaker.
L
Yeager
and
committee
members,
Lindsey
Knox,
with
McDonald
Chrono
here
representing
the
Nevada
Restaurant
Association
throughout
Nevada
restaurants
and
food
service,
Outlets
employ
almost
220
000
nebadans
or
the
fat
over
the
last
five
years
specific
to
the
restaurant
and
food
service.
Outlets
202
complaints
were
filed,
equaling
0.009
of
all
our
employees.
Our
belief
is
that
a
heat
mitigation
regulation
cannot
be
a
blanket
policy,
but
must
instead
be
industry
specific.
We
ask
that
this
regulation
be
tabled
and
allows
stakeholders,
along
with
OSHA,
to
work
on
industry-specific
heat
mitigation
regulations.
Thank
you.
M
M
N
Good
afternoon,
speaker,
Yeager
members
of
the
commission,
Andrew
McKay
executive
director
with
the
Nevada
franchise
Auto
Dealers
Association,
for
the
record
not
to
be
labor.
Many
of
the
points
that
have
already
been
made
have
already
been
made
by
my
colleagues,
but
we
are
opposed
to
regulation.
N
053-20
were
opposed
to
it
on
several
fronts,
but
primarily
because
of
the
fact
that
it's
simply
too
too
prescriptive.
We
believe
that
the
best
approach
to
this
is
that
the
division
issue-
industry,
specific
guidance,
a
one-size-fits-all
approach
is,
is
simply
in,
in
my
humble
opinion,
not
the
way
to
go
about
it
with
respect
to
the
personal
risk
factors
in
section
five,
quite
honestly,
to
dovetail
off
what
I
just
said,
we
think
it's
going
to
be
virtually
impossible
to
monitor
some
of
those
things.
N
How
do
we
do
it
and
are
we
getting
our
members
set
up
in
a
trick
bag
again,
respectfully
we
request
that
the
commission
either
take
no
action
on
this
regulation
or
reject
it
in
its
outright.
However,
in
closing
Mr
Speaker
I
want
to
put
it
on
the
record
that
will
commit
to
working
with
the
division
over
the
interim
on
this
thing
and
hopefully
find
a
potential
resolution
to
it.
So
thank
you
for
your
time
and
I
hope
you
all
have
a
great
day.
O
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker
Madam
members
of
the
committee,
Warren
Hardy,
represent
the
Nevada
Urban
Consortium
today,
which
is
made
up
of
the
cities
of
Las
Vegas
Henderson,
Reno,
Sparks
and
North
Las
Vegas.
We
have
a
little
bit
different.
Take
our
our
concerns
with
the
bill
come
from
section,
seven
and
eight
primarily
that
require
us
to
really
control
the
environment
of
the
workplace.
That's
a
very
difficult
thing
to
do
for
us,
with
relation
to
Public
Safety
with
police
and
firefighters,
almost
impossible
to
control
the
environment
that
these
individuals
are
working
in.
O
In
addition
to
that,
I
think
we
have
very
strong
best
safety,
best
practices
and
procedures
in
place
for
those
Industries
and
in
the
legislation
that
came
forward
this
session.
The
public
safety
were
immediately
Exempted
from
the
bill
because
of
all
these
concerns,
so
we
would
like
to
work
with
work
with
OSHA
and
others
to
promulgate
regulation
that
takes
those
factors
into
account
and,
unfortunately,
I
don't
think
the
regulation
before
you
does
today.
Thank
you.
P
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
Alexis
moderix,
with
the
Nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors,
I'm
gonna
break
this
up
a
little
bit.
We
are
neutral
on
the
proposed
regs
053-20.
We
appreciated
participating
in
the
regulatory
process
a
couple
of
years
ago.
The
changes
made
from
the
original
language
got
us
to
neutral
then,
and
it's
where
we
remain
today.
We
were
also
involved
in
the
conversations
on
SB
427
that
dealt
with
similar
subject
matter
and
included
Provisions
for
poor
air
quality.
P
Q
Contractors
around
our
state
have
already
implemented
safety
programs
that
include
address
and
prevent
heat
hazards
caused
by
heat
illness.
There's
no
there's
no
all-encompassing,
one-size-fits-all
method
for
mitigating
the
potential
hazards
posed
by
heat
exposure.
Each
business
is
capable
of
conducting
their
own
hazard
assessment
and
job
safety
analysis
as
they
do
for
other
hazards
under
the
guidance
of
Osha.
We
would.
We
would
respectfully
ask
you
to
decline
this
measure.
Thank
you.
R
R
51-320,
MCA
and
smacna
employers
have
been
building
Las
Vegas
for
70
plus
years
and
not
only
recognize
but
respect
that
southern
Nevada
is
a
desert
climate
and
thereby
prone
to
these
extreme
Heats
that
we
see
safety
is
and
should
always
be.
First
in
the
construction
industry,
our
employers
have
prioritized
safety
accordingly
by
making
it
a
seamless
part
of
their
company
cultures.
Our
Workers
are
everything
to
the
successful
delivery
of
a
construction
project.
Therefore
ensuring
every
construction
worker
returns
home
safe
every
night
is
non-negotiable
for
us.
R
S
Chair
Yeager
members
of
the
legislative
commission,
my
name
is
Jake
Matthews
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
Southern
Nevada
chapter
of
the
national
electrical
contractors
Association,
we
are
opposed
to
regulation
053-20
and
agree
with
the
comments
previously
stated.
We
are
asking
that
you
support
our
efforts
in
giving
all
parties
additional
time
to
develop
the
safety
regulation.
Thank
you.
T
Gary
Yeager
Peter
Kruger
on
behalfland
about
a
petroleum
marketers
and
convenience
store
Association,
like
the
other
section,
8
give
us
pause
and
we
did
participate
in
the
entire
process
two
years
ago
to
try
to
come
to
some
understanding
regs.
But
our
concern
is
this
piece
about
industry.
Specific.
The
petroleum
industry
is
different
than
most
of
the
other
Industries.
T
We
deal
with
volatile
fuels
in
rail
cars
in
transportation,
in
tanks
that
hold
hundreds
of
thousands
of
gallons
and
the
requirements
of
handling
moving
and
just
generally
operating
in
that
environment
preclude
some
of
the
the
specificity
that
is
spelled
out
in
53-02.
So
therefore,
we,
like
many
of
the
others,
believe
that
this
needs
to
be
reworked
and
we
are
committed
to
continue
that
process.
Thank
you.
U
Good
afternoon,
chair
committee,
commission
members,
Nick
Vanderpool,
with
Flynn
judici
government
Affairs
on
behalf
of
nnda
and
its
membership
Echo.
A
lot
of
what
my
colleagues
have
said
and
nda's
membership
is
very
diverse.
Everything
from
construction
to
manufacturing
and
and
to
the
points
that
were
made.
This
is
this
regulation
is
not
a
one-size-fits
all
and,
and
we
look
forward
to
hopefully
working
with
OSHA
in
there.
Thank
you.
V
Good
afternoon
Mr,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
John
lelu
here
representing
neop
and
it's
700
members
of
the
commercial
development
industry,
Statewide
I
normally,
would
have
something
profound
to
say
today,
not
so
much
I'll.
Just
thank
my
colleagues,
testifying
in
opposition
and
Echo
their
comments.
Thank
you.
W
X
Good
afternoon,
chair
members
of
the
legislative
commission,
Bradley
Mayer
from
Argenta
Partners,
representing
Nevada
Builders
Alliance
today
we're
the
largest
Trade
Organization
in
the
state.
You've
heard
all
the
detailed
concerns
about
regulation
53-20.
We
too
share
those
concerns.
We
would
ask
you
to
not
adopt
this
regulation
and
we
are
in
post.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
seeing
no
one
else
coming
forward
in
Carson,
City
I
have
been
informed
that
we
do
not
have
a
feed
to
Las
Vegas
due
to
the
condition
of
the
Grant
Sawyer
building.
Specifically,
the
elevator
is
not
working
again
so
BPS
can
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there
is
anyone
on
the
phone
who'd
like
to
give
public
comment,
please.
Z
Thank
you
Mr
Speaker
and
members
of
the
commission.
My
name
is
Emily
osterberg
and
I'm,
calling
on
behalf
of
the
Henderson
Chamber
of
Commerce
and
our
over
800
members,
most
of
which
are
small
businesses,
and
we
are
also
opposed
to
this
regulation.
053-20.
We
agree
with
the
sentiments
previously
stood
in
opposition.
We
believe
that
employee
safety
should
be
a
priority
instead
of
the
broad
language
of
this
regulation
will
have
a
negative
effect
on
numerous
businesses
throughout
the
state
of
Nevada.
Z
A
Thank
you
so
much
BPS
and
thank
you
to
all
who
provided
public
comment
and
mostly
everyone
kept
it
within
two
minutes
other
than
Mr
watam's
I
believe
so
I
want
to
say
thank
you
for
that,
because
there's
a
lot
going
on
in
the
building
and
appreciate
your
ability
to
keep
the
comments
brief
and
all
the
Dittos
that
came
in
there
and
again
as
a
reminder,
we'll
have
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
agenda
as
well.
That
does
complete
agenda
item
number.
A
I
just
forgot
that
we
had
a
meeting
during
session.
That
was
also
I
guess
we
did
have
a
meeting
during
session
March
1st
2023,
so
the
draft
minutes
are
available
on
the
website
as
well.
I'll
first
ask:
is
there
any?
Are
there?
Is
there
any
discussion
or
Corrections
of
the
minutes
and
if
I
don't
see
that
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes
of
the
March
1st
2023
meeting.
A
Have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
howdegi
have
a
second
from
Senator
Harris
and
is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion?
See
no
discussion.
All
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
any
opposed,
nay
motion
carries
the
minutes
for
the
March
2023
March,
1st
2023
legislative
commission
meeting
are
approved.
That
takes
us
to
agenda
item
number
four
Mr.
Severt
is
your
time
to
shine
once
again
in
the
legislative
commission.
So
this
is
our
court
mandated
status
report
regarding
the
Nevada
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles
technology
fee
refund
project,
thanks
for
being
here
this
afternoon.
AA
Thank
you,
chair
and
Committee
Member
Sean
sever
from
the
Nevada
DMV
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
update
you
on
our
Tech
fee
refund
project,
which
I'm
happy
to
report
is
almost
complete.
Through
yesterday,
the
DMV
has
distributed
more
than
1.95
million
dollars
or
of
the
six
million
dollars
in
refunds
available.
AA
AA
AA
Throughout
this
project,
many
of
the
customers
have
indicated
they
are
not
not
interested
in
receiving
their
refund
and
have
told
us
to
keep
it,
which
is
not
reflected
in
these
stats.
The
DMVs
conducted
a
fifteen
thousand
dollar
advertising
campaign,
received
a
lot
of
media
coverage
and
has
done
continuous
social
media
posts
to
remind
customers
to
get
their
refunds
and
we'll
continue
that
those
efforts
this
month,
any
refunds
remaining
after
June
30th,
will
revert
to
the
state
highway
fund
pursuant
to
section
4.7
of
section
Senate
Bill
457
of
the
2021
legislative
session.
A
A
A
We
do
have
legislative
council
with
us
today
to
help
if
we
need
help
with
these
regulations
so
essentially
I
know
we
have
some
new
commission
members
so
for
those
of
you
who
are
new,
this
will
come
as
new
information
for
those
of
you
who
have
been
on
the
commission
before
this
will
sound
familiar.
So
we
have
regulations
on
what
we
do.
A
Typically,
is
we
decide
ahead
of
time
which
regulations
would
like
to
be
pulled
for
discussion
and
then
once
we
pull
those
out
we'll
take
one
motion
to
approve
the
rest
of
the
regulation
before
we
get
to
that
I
wanted
to
note.
There
are
two
regulations
that
have
been
withdrawn
from
the
list
and
those
are
the
two
secretary
of
state
regulations,
so
under
2021
regulations.
A
R089-21
Secretary
of
State
and
R
106-21.
Those
have
been
withdrawn
from
consideration,
so
those
will
not
be
pulled
for
discussion,
or
will
they
be
part
of
the
motion
this
afternoon?
So
then,
let
me
tell
you
what
I
have
so
far
for
members
that
have
requested
regulations
to
be
pulled
for
discussion
and
we'll
just
start
at
the
top.
So
so
far
our
171-20,
which
is
a
board
of
medical
examiners
that
will
be
pulled
for
discussion.
A
The
very
next
one
on
the
list
will
be
as
well
r018-21,
which
is
a
secretary
of
state
relating
to
securities
and
then
the
other
one.
Not
surprisingly,
that
I
asked
to
have
pulled
for
consideration
is
on
page
three:
it's
the
2020
regulation,
r053-20,
the
division
of
industrial
relations
of
the
Department
of
Business
and
Industry
otherwise
known
as
the
heat
regulation.
Those
are
the
three
so
far
that
I've
been
asked
to
pull
for
discussion
before
so
I
want
to
give
other
members
a
chance.
AB
AB
AB
A
I'm,
looking
down
at
legal
counsel,
I
think
we
got
confirmation,
it's
late,
it's
late
in
the
session,
it's
late
in
the
day,
so
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
all
those
listed
regulations
which
were
essentially
all
of
them,
with
the
exception
of
the
two
that
were
withdrawn
and
the
three
that
were
pulled
for
discussion
do
I
have
a
second
on
that
motion.
I
have
a
second
from
Senator
canizarro
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Okay,
seeing
no
discussion
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
any
opposed,
nay
motion
carries
all
of
those
regulations
are
approved
and
that
what
we'll
do
now
is
start
at
the
top
and
we'll
consider
the
remaining
three
regulations
one
at
a
time,
so
we'll
go
to
R
171-20.
This
is
a
board
of
medical
examiners,
regulation
and
I
see
we
have
Miss
Bradley
joining
us
on
zoom
and
Senator
Daly
I
think
this
was
one.
You
had
a
question
on
so
we'll
go
to
you.
AC
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
so
my
question
is
in
section
15
subsection
three
I
was
looking
to
get
some
confirmation
regarding
the
language
where
the
supervision
of
a
phys
physician
assistant
that
the
requirements
of
this
subsection
are
satisfied.
As
super
supervising
position
spends
part
of
the
day
at
any
location
where
the
physician
assistant
uses
Telehealth
to
provide
medical
services.
AC
So
can
they
meet
their
supervisory
responsibilities?
Just
using
Telehealth
and
I
know,
there's
some
language
in
I
think
it's
subsection
d5d
about
being
able
to
use
Telehealth,
but
I
want
to
get
clarification
that
they
actually
have
to
physically
go
there
where
the
physician
assistant
is
at
least
once
a
month.
AD
AD
We
believe,
when
it
says
part
of
a
day
at
any
location
that
that
does
include
a
telemedicine
location
if
that's
the
way,
but
the
intent
here
is
not
to
allow
someone
only
to
be
supervised
by
telemedicine.
It's
just
that.
That's
the
way
that
the
physician
assistant
is
providing
Services.
We
have
physician
assistance
as
well
as
Physicians
that
are
located
in
other
states,
but
licensed
here
and
providing
telemedicine
services.
AC
AC
So
I
I
see
that
a
lot
of
the
language
that
you're
deleting
there
regarding
hearing
office
panels
and
that
and
a
lot
of
the
language
in
that
section
and
I
believe
the
following
section
are
deleting
the
procedures
and
and
some
of
the
information
various
things.
So
if
that
infra,
if
that
language
is
gone,
what
hearing
procedures
are
you
going
to
utilize
it?
Does
it
default
to
something
else?
It
is
in
another
section:
is
it
going
to
go
to
NRS,
622
or
some
other
233b?
AC
What
is
the
hearing
procedure
is
going
to
be
how's
a
person
going
to
know
what
the
ground
rules
are.
AD
Sarah
Bradley
again
for
the
record.
Thank
you
senator
for
the
question.
What
we
are
doing
is
in
2015,
the
legislature
removed
the
exemption.
So,
for
a
very
long
time
the
Nevada
state
board
of
medical
examiners
was
exempt
from
NRS
chapter
622a,
which
is
I,
would
say
the
general
procedures
for
hearings.
We
were
exempt
for
a
very
long
time
in
2015.
The
legislature
removed
that
exemption,
and
so
we
have
been
having
to
follow
622a.
AD
So
the
changes
in
a
lot
of
this
regulation,
including
section
18,
as
well
as
some
of
the
other
changes
in
this
chapter,
some
of
the
repealed
sections.
It's
so
it's
to
make
it
clear
that
we're
going
to
follow
622a
and
we're
not
going
to
have
duplicating
procedures
in
our
regulations.
AC
And
thank
you
for
the
clarification.
That's
what
I
was
hoping
your
answer
was
going
to
be.
I
was
just
curious
because
you're
getting
rid
of
all
of
those
procedures,
but
it
didn't
really
say
anything
else.
I
wasn't
didn't
know
that
you
got
put
under
622a,
which
I
know
is
a
default
area
for
a
lot
of
different
boards
and
and
people
to
look
at.
Those
are
all
my
questions.
Mr
chair,
if
you
want
a
motion,
I
can
make
one.
A
AC
A
A
Seeing
no
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay
motion
carries
r171-20
is
adopted,
approved,
I,
don't
know
what
the
phrase
is
it
proved
approved
is
the
official
phraseology
it
is
approved.
So
we'll
go
next
to
the
very
next
regulation
that
was
pulled
for
discussion
and
that
is
r018
-2-1.
That's
a
regulation
from
the
secretary
of
state,
so
I
would
call
to
the
table.
A
AC
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
so
my
first
question
is
in
section
26
I
gotta.
Go
to
that
one.
AC
And
I
believe
there's
fees
that
are
referenced
in
there
that
so
are
those
fees
also
in
statute
and
just
mirrored
in
the
regulation,
or
they
only
in
regulation,
not
that
I'm
against
that
I'm.
Just
asking,
if
they're
only
in
regulation.
AE
Good
afternoon,
Senator
Bailey
those
fees
are
currently
also
in
statute,
they're
they're.
What
we're
doing
in
this
regulation
is
simply
mirroring
a
model
role
that
is
currently
in
statute
by
way
of
reference,
but
not
spelled
out
fully
and
completely
so.
This
is
not
a
brand
new
fee.
It's
one!
That's
already
in
statute.
AC
And
thank
you
I
just
just
wanted
to
be
clear
on
the
record
now
so
then,
the
fees
that
you
collect
in
the
statute
are
have
to
be
used
for
all
of
these.
So
there's
rules
along
with
with
the
fees
where
they
go,
whether
it
reverts
to
general
fund
et
cetera,
a
separate
account
all
that
I
didn't
know
if
that
was
in
regulation.
If
these
were
only
here.
So
the
next
question
is
in
section
35,
subsection,
7.
AC
I
was
just
looking
to
get
some
clarification
or
wonder
why
it
says
on
the
continuing
education,
if
I
got
it
right
that
the
administrator
May
and
his
or
her
discretion
waive
the
requirements
of
this
section,
why
don't
we
use
the
words
for
good
cause
or
whatever?
What
would
be
the
discretionary
point
on
why
they
would
waive
that
I'm
sure
you
have
examples,
but
anyway,
I
was
wanting
to
know
why
it's
just
a
discretion
of
one
person
without
having
to
show
good
cause.
AE
Certainly
senator
Houston
for
the
record
I'm
deputy
secretary
of
state
for
Securities.
The
the
reason
that
language
is
in
this
subsection
7
is
certain,
is
simply
to
to
give
a
little
bit
of
wiggle
room
for
those
for
those
people
or
I
should
say
registrants
who
have
taken
a
class
that
may
have
qualified
in
another
state,
because
this
is
a.
This
is
a
model
rule
that
we're
adopting
from
NASA
the
North
American,
Securities
administrators
Association
and
it's
being
implemented
over.
AE
You
know
in
waves
over
the
throughout
the
country
and
the
classes
that
are
being
implemented
and
that
are
that
have
been
accepted
in
some
states
may
not
have
already
come
online
here
in
Nevada.
So
the
purpose
behind
having
this
specific
sentence
is
only
to
allow
the
administrator
the
discretion
to
provide
a
waiver
if
they've
taken
a
class
in
another
state.
That
would
normally
be
something
that
satisfies
Nevada
policy
but
hasn't
been
formally
adopted
by
NASA
or
by
finra.
AC
And
understood
if
there
were
good
cause,
obviously
you're
saying
that
it
wouldn't
be
done
just
without
a
reason,
just
why
why
we
don't
have
the
words
right
yeah,
not
that
it's
the
end
of
the
world,
but
there
should
should
be
in
there.
In
my
opinion,
last
questions
in
section
39
regarding
pre-hearing
conference.
AC
AC
Are
you
trying
to
have
like
a
settlement
or
you're
trying
to
just
outline
what
the
issue
is
prior
to
a
hearing,
because
normally
in
a
pre-hearing
conference
you
see
or
a
settlement
conference,
you
have
additional
language
that
says
it
can't
be
recorded.
Any
statements
you
may
make
can't
be
used
against
you
in
a
subsequent
proceeding
and
various
things.
So
without
all
of
those
words
in
there,
I
need
to
have
you
guys
on
the
record
that
that's
what
you're
going
to
do
or
intend
to
do.
AE
AE
The
the
purpose
is
simply
to
provide
a
mechanism
that
doesn't
currently
exist
for
the
administrator
or
the
hearing
officer,
as
sometimes
we
do
have
hearing
officers
that
are
not
the
administrator
to
invite
the
parties
to
the
table
and
allow
them
to
yes
to
discuss
settlement,
but
also
to
discuss
evidentiary
issues
and
and
what
types
of
evidence
they
may
be
disclosing
or
what
may
be
available
to
the
other
party
without
the
formalities
of
a
full
settlement
or
Discovery
conference.
AC
And
I
appreciate
the
answer
just
want
to
try
to
get
some
of
that
on
the
record,
because
it's
not
entirely
clear
there
on
what
can
be
done.
I
know,
there's
several
other
areas
of
of
law
that
have
pre-year
in
conferences
or
settlement,
confidence
or
pre,
whatever
you
ever
want
to
do,
and-
and
we
have
those
parameters
on
there-
is
that
if
someone
comes
to
that
and
they
only
one
side's
given
evidence,
it
creates
an
unfair
advantage
and
I
see
you
there
that
if
they
have
counsel,
they
have
to
be
present.
AC
I
understand
that,
but
I
wanted
to
have
on
the
record
that
somebody
said
something
if
you're
in
a
settlement.
If
it
goes
into
that
area
that
you
can't
use
whatever
they
said
at
that
preairing
conference
in
a
in
a
later
proceeding.
Otherwise
it's
not
going
to
work
and
people
are
not
going
to
really
participate
other
than
what
they
absolutely
have
to
do
at
the
minimum.
AE
Certainly
Senator
Daley
Aaron
Houston
to
get
the
record
certainly
are
in
10.
Is
that
this
pre-hearing
not
contain
or
would
not
be
a
place
where
evidence
that's
presented
or
statements
that
are
made
could
then
later
be
used
at
hearing
or
if
the
cases
somehow
appealed
and
taken
to
District
Court
would
not
be
admissible
for
evidence
there
as
well.
AC
Appreciate
your
answer,
thank
you.
Mr
chair
and
you
know,
I'd
be
more
comfortable.
If
those
words
were
there,
but
at
least
we
have
it
on
the
record
and
that's
your
intent
and
I
think
we
can
people
if
they
listen
to
any
of
this
stuff
or
read
this
stuff.
Then
they'll
have
at
least
that
Comfort.
Thank
you.
A
Have
a
motion
from
Senator
Daly
I
have
a
second
from
assemblywoman
houdigi.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion?
See
no
discussion.
All
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
any
opposed,
nay
motion
carries
r018-21
is
approved
that
takes
us
to
the
main
attraction
of
this
afternoon's
meeting
and
that
is
r053-20.
A
The
division
of
industrial
relations
of
the
Department
of
Business
and
Industry
I
see
we
have
Miss
carrion
joining
us
via
zoom
and
I.
Imagine
we
probably
have
quite
a
few
questions
on
this
one.
So
who
would
like
to
ask
a
question?
First,
I'm
not
going
to
go
to
Center
daily
first,
we'll
start
with
Senator
Hansen.
AF
I'll
keep
it
to
a
minimum
Mr
chair.
Thank
her
Mr.
Speaker.
Excuse
me
actually,
thank
you.
I'm
glad
you're
here
he.
Needless
to
say,
in
public
comment,
there
were
a
lot
of
things
were
addressed.
What
I
want
to
do
is
go
back
to
the
need
and
purpose
of
the
proposed
revisions
to
regulations
that
you
provided
in
it.
You
mentioned
that
there's
an
average
of
73
worker
compensation
claims
a
year.
AF
I
did
a
little
rough
math
and
I'm
figuring,
there's
at
least
just
in
Clark
County,
probably
in
the
neighborhood
of
750
000
workers
that
if
they
do
a
typical
work
year
about
270
days,
that's
over
200
million
mandates
and
out
of
that
you've
got
73
compensation
claims
and
then
even
more
interesting.
You
said
the
industries
with
the
highest
number
of
complaints
over
this
time
period
were
accommodation
and
Food
Services,
retail
trade
and
Manufacturing.
AF
Yet
the
the
whole
gist
of
the
regulation
seems
to
be
towards
construction,
which
doesn't
even
rank
in
the
top
highest
numbers
got
a
serious,
one-size-fits-all
thing.
What
I'm
wondering,
though,
is
what
is
the
real
I
mean.
Why
do
we
have
this
regulator
if
you're
73
claims
a
year
for
the
state
of
Nevada
out
of
just
Clark,
County
I'm,
guessing
750
000
people
I
mean
I'm,
sorry
that
isn't
even
like
one
tenth
of
1
100th
of
one-tenth
of
the
number
of
workers
actually
having
a
problem.
AF
AG
All
right,
thank
you
for
that
question.
Victoria
for
the
record
I'm,
the
administrator
at
the
division
of
industrial
relations
and
through
through
you,
chair
to
Senator
Hansen.
AG
So
we
do
believe,
there's
a
significant
amount
of
underreporting
and
injuries,
but,
given
that
this
issue
of
workplace
safety
standards
for
heat
illness
was
considered
and
addressed
during
the
legislative
session,
what
we
would
like
to
do
is
have
an
opportunity
to
go
back,
get
more
feedback
from
stakeholders
and
bring
back
a
revised
regulation
to
the
legislative
commission
for
approval.
Thank
you.
AF
Oh
wow:
well,
that's
a
surprise.
So
what
you're
basically
saying
is
you'd
like
us
to
table
this
at
this
Opera
at
this
point
and
give
you
an
opportunity
to
go
back
and
revise
this
regulation.
AF
A
AB
A
A
So
you
know
I
chaired
this
legislative
commission
since
the
last
interim,
and
this
regulation
has
been
in
front
of
us
twice
and
I've
heard
over
and
over
again-
and
we
heard
it
today
that
everyone
wants
to
work
together
on
something
I
saw
all
my
all
my
best
friends
in
the
room
today
come
up
to
the
table
and
say
that
I
believe
that
you
are
sincere
in
saying
that
we
had
a
piece
of
legislation
that
was
Advanced
this
session.
That
ultimately
did
not
make
it
but
also
address
this
issue.
A
So
I
just
really
want
to
encourage
folks
to
work
on
this,
because
it's
it's
June
1st
today,
which
means
it's
going
to
get
really
hot
really
fast,
particularly
down
in
southern
Nevada
and
I.
Think
this
is
something
that
is
critically
important
for
folks.
I
understand
the
concerns
that
were
raised
about
different
Industries,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
protecting
folks
so
to
both
to
the
division
and
to
the
folks
who
testified
in
public
comment
or
provide
a
public
comment
in
opposition.
A
Would
just
please
ask
that
you
work
together
to
try
to
bring
something
back
to
the
commission
that
this
commission
would
be
able
to
adopt
any
further
discussion,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
signify
by
saying
aye.
Any
opposed,
nay,
motion
carries
that
takes
us
through
agenda
item
number
five,
which
really
might
be
the
fastest
we've
ever
gone
through
regulations
and
I'll
tell
you
for
all
of
you
who
are
new
on
the
commission.
AH
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
for
the
record
Brenda.
Does
you
should
have
in
front
of
you
a
one-page
letter
that
explains
that
the
commissioner
minority
Affairs
is
asking
the
legislative
commission
to
appoint
the
four
members
listed
there?
They
they
do
point
out
that
they
have
five
vacancies,
but
one
of
the
vacancies
would
be
a
shortened
term
and
they
would
prefer
to
ask
you
to
fill
that
later.
AH
So
the
the
action
that
they
are
asking
you
to
take
today
is
to
appoint
wani
Romero
Annabelle
Navarro,
Nina
Gallagher
and
Lance
West
as
members
of
the
minority
Affairs
commission
today,.
A
A
I,
don't
see
any
discussion
or
questions
so
do
I.
Have
a
motion
to
appoint
these
four
Commissioners?
Have
a
motion
from
assembly
woman
how
to
get
I
have
a
second
from
Senator
cannizzaro.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Seeing
no
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
any
opposed,
nay
motion
carries
the
four
Commissioners
are
appointed.
A
This
is
my
favorite
part
of
the
agenda
coming
up.
This
is
agenda
item
number,
seven,
election
of
a
brand
new
chair
and
vice
chair
of
the
legislative
commission
members.
You
have
a
copy
of
rule
number
11
of
joint,
your
joint
standing
rules
on
your
desk
and
it
provides
that
the
chair
and
vice
chair
shall
be
selected
at
the
first
meeting
of
the
newly
formed
legislative
commission.
A
That
is
indeed
this
afternoon's
meeting
and
they
Shall
Serve
until
his
or
her
successor
is
appointed
following
the
formation
of
the
next
legislative
commission,
which
will
happen
in
the
2025
legislative
session.
So
at
this
time,
I'm
going
to
go
to
assemblywoman
howdegi,
who
I
believe
would
like
to
make
a
motion.
AB
A
Seeing
no
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
signify
by
saying
aye,
any
opposed,
nay
motion
carries
congratulations,
chair
and
vice
chair
and
seeing
that
you
have
your
hands
full
right
now,
if
you
don't
mind,
I'll
handle
the
last
item
on
this
agenda
as
a
guest
chair
for
the
moment,
and
that
will
be
our
last
round
of
public
comment.
Is
there
anybody
here
in
Carson
City
who
would
like
to
give
public
comment?
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
BPS,
commission
members,
thank
you
for
being
here
on
what
I
know
is
a
very
busy
day,
we're
down
to
I,
think
102
hours
and
some
minutes
till
the
end
of
session,
and
thank
you,
of
course,
to
our
staff,
who
worked
hard
to
get
us
here
and
ready
for
this
meeting,
so
seeing
no
other
business
before
the
legislative
commission.
This
meeting
is
adjourned
here.