MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

 

Seventy-Second Session

April 3, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:50 p.m., on Thursday, April 3, 2003.  Chairman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman

Mr. Kelvin Atkinson

Mr. John C. Carpenter

Mr. Jerry D. Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Pete Goicoechea

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mr. Ron Knecht

Mr. Mark Manendo

Mr. John Oceguera

Mr. Rod Sherer

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Bob Beers, Assemblyman, District No. 4

Mr. Joe Hardy, Assemblyman, District No. 20

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst

Cindy Clampitt, Committee Secretary

Kyle Wentz, Committee Page

Jackie Valley, Secretary to Mrs. Vonne Chowning

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Sean Carter, Student Citizen

Lonnie Shields, Washoe County School District

Major Robert Wideman, Deputy Chief, Northern Command, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety

Sergeant Bob Roshak, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association 

Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles

Rusty McAllister, Professional Fire Fighter’s Association

Michael Spears, Auto Body Group

Jim Werbeckes, Farmers Insurance Group

Joe Guild III, State Farm Insurance Companies

Lisa Foster, American Auto Association, Nevada

Gil Grieve, Owner, Concourse Body Shop

Rick Schneider, Agent, Farmers Insurance

Mike Harris, AA Row Auto Dismantling

Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association

Mike Sullivan, Whittlesea Bell Transportation

Brent Bell, Chief Operating Officer, Whittlesea Bell Transportation

Jack Owens, Star Limousine in Las Vegas

Norman Ty Hilbrecht, Attorney, Las Vegas Limousines and Airline Limousine Corporation in Clark County

Dan L. Wulz, Private Citizen

Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance and Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles

 

Chairwoman Vonne Chowning:

[Opened the hearing and asked for the roll to be called.  The secretary called the roll and all members were present.]

 

Assembly Bill 197:  Makes various changes concerning certain applications submitted to Department of Transportation by governmental entities for easements or licenses or permits for encroachments on certain highway rights-of-way. (BDR 35-342)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The parties are apparently still working toward a solution on A.B. 197, so that bill will be heard on Tuesday, April 8, 2003.

 

We will open the hearing on A.B. 299.  Is Assemblyman Beers present?  No?  In that case, we will hear A.B. 299 and A.B. 367 later, and open the hearing on A.B. 414.

 

Assembly Bill 414:  Authorizes use of single center lane to make left-hand turn onto highway. (BDR 43-944)

 

Assemblyman Ron Knecht, Assembly District No. 40:

[Introduced himself.] Each of you should have a mock-up of the proposed amendmentand a summary prepared by staff.  You should also have a one-page summary with graphs. [Exhibit C], [Exhibit D], and [Exhibit E], respectively. 

 

The bill makes legal an action many drivers already use, an action already permitted in many states.  That action is making a left-hand turn into the center lane and waiting there for an opening to merge into the destination lane.

 

It sounds like a lot of words, but look at the example on Graph 1 of Exhibit E.  There is a car wanting to make a left turn onto a street that has a center lane and a car approaching from the bottom in Graph 1 of Exhibit E.  They are to wait for both lanes to their left to clear and the first lane to the right to clear.  When those three things happen at once, they can make a left-hand turn into the destination lane.  What they cannot do is to make the left-hand turn into the center lane, wait there until an opening appears in the destination lane, and then merge into that lane.

 

What A.B. 414 would do is allow someone to do what the vast majority of Nevada motorists already do.  They wait for the two lanes to the left to clear, pull into the center lane, and wait there, not travel down the center lane but wait there.  When an opening appears, they merge into the destination lane.

 

This issue came to my attention when there was news coverage of the fact that, contrary to most people’s practice, and contrary to what most people think is the law, it is not legal to make that left-hand turn into the center lane.  That was covered in a newspaper article, and someone actually received a ticket for doing it, even though the Driver’s Handbook said that was the way to do it.  The Driver’s Handbook was at variance with the law.

 

Like any civilian, I said to myself, when I saw this, “Somebody ought to do something about that.”  What I didn’t think about at the time was that I am the “somebody” right now.  Now that I have been elected, this is what we are elected to do.  Fortunately, a Carson City High School student called me up and said, “You ought to do something about that!”  Thus, let me introduce Mr. Sean Carter, the Carson City High School student who called me.  He can tell you about this, being his class project, and about the survey reported in item two of Exhibit E,  that 77 percent of drivers needing the option provided for by the bill, already use it, although it is technically illegal.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Before we go on to Mr. Carter, I need something clarified.  You stated that this is currently illegal, and yet, in the Driver’s Handbook it stated the action was legal.  Does the Handbook still state that or has it been corrected?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

I believe, and I am not familiar with the details, that this used to be legal, and the Driver’s Handbook reflected that.  In any event, that is what the Driver’s Handbook reflected, that this was the proper way to do it, and it is not the proper way to do it.  I talked to the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles].  The DMV told me they did not reissue the Driver’s Handbook.  They regularly reprint it, and they waited for the next reprint to make the correction.  They used other means in the testing process and so forth to correct people’s perception.  As a result of that experience, we know that there will be no cost or effort associated with making the change requested by A.B. 414.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you, and I am sure someone who is present from the DMV could clarify that; otherwise the Committee will request that in writing.  Mr. Carter.

 

Sean Carter, Student Citizen:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

First of all, I want to say thank you for coming.  We always appreciate young people taking part in the legislative process, so welcome here.

 

Sean Carter:

I originally came to Assemblyman Knecht because I saw the same article he spoke about, and I was not aware the law was that way to begin with.  I needed a project for my senior project, something we have to do for graduation at our high school.  I came to Mr. Knecht and asked him to put in a bill draft for the issue.  He was very cooperative and helped me do that. 

 

Regarding my survey, I took a survey on Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at the corner of Nye and Main [Carson] Streets from 12:25 p.m. to 1:17 p.m. and at Humboldt Lane and Highway 50 East, from 1:30 p.m. to 1:48 p.m., and Saliman Street from 1:50 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.  I witnessed a total of 108 cars, 15  percent of which actually passed up opportunities where they could have pulled into the center lane and waited, as the law currently states.

 

Thirty-three percent did not need to use the center lane.  Traffic was open and so they just went on through.  Fifty-two percent used the center lane as proposed by A.B. 414.  Discounting the 33 percent that did not need to use the center lane, that would make it 22 percent compared to 78 percent, depending on how the numbers were rounded, or 77 percent compared to 23 percent.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Carter, are you a licensed driver? 

 

Sean Carter:

I am.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

What have you done with use of the center lane when making a left-hand turn?

 

Sean Carter:

I, personally, have used it in the way proposed by the bill, and I have had overwhelming support from people I have talked to about this bill as they use that procedure all the time.  I see it happen quite a bit.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you.  I do want you to know that we are not asking you so that someone will give you a ticket.  Thank you for your testimony.  Are there any questions from the Committee of either Assemblyman Knecht or Mr. Carter?

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

As Mr. Carter stated, about 52 percent or 53 percent of the people are currently breaking the law, so A.B. 414 would correct the law.  As testimony was being presented, I was thinking about myself driving to work.  Generally, on my drive, people are driving 60 M.P.H. to 70 M.P.H. [miles per hour] through Pleasant Valley, and I know law enforcement is aware of that. 

 

Do you think that we should change the speed limit because most people are breaking the speed limit?

Assemblyman Knecht:

If I may?

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

You may choose to answer, if you wish; however, that is not a part of this bill, so you do not have to answer that.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Madam Chair, it is in reference to the bill, because people are breaking the law.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Knecht, you may answer whichever way you wish, but, most specifically, to the bill.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

I will be brief.  I don’t think that we should change the law anytime someone breaks it.  In this case, of the people who actually had the opportunity, 78 percent actually use the practice currently.  That means it is more practiced in the breach than the observance.  This is, also, a very reasonable practice that is used in other states.  This is a matter of a reasonable change in the law to conform to people’s practices, and I think that is when it is appropriate.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I am not saying I am opposing this bill at this time, as I would like to hear all of the testimony on it.  But, I have another point I would like to bring up.  The diagram in Exhibit E reflects a “T”-type intersection, not a cross street.  My question is, “When the car in the diagram on the right, pulls into a center left-turn lane, what happens when a car pulls into that same lane making a left turn going the other direction?”  If two cars enter the lane at the same time, I foresee a safety issue there.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

That is point 4 of my presentation.  Point 4 is that the proposal reduces the taking of chances by motorists in heavy traffic.  This benefit, however, is slightly offset by putting more traffic into the center lane, as suggested by Mr. Gustavson.

 

The numbers are calculated precisely to 78 percent versus 22 percent; I did not want to overstate the number.  I am also trying to not overstate the benefits, recognizing Mr. Gustavson’s point that it does add to congestion in the center lane.  I think the balance of safety and other factors supports it.

Chairwoman Chowning:

Do you have further points to bring forth on the bill?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

Yes, I do.  This bill reduces congestion, waiting time, and irritation in the left-hand turn or forward lane, or in the exit from a parking lot.

 

The amendment (Exhibit C) pertains to the original intent of the bill.  It would establish who would have the right-of-way in the center lane.  This is something that the NHP (Nevada Highway Patrol) brought to my attention when I reviewed the bill with them.  The NHP had stated, if the bill established right-of-way according to their proposal and if drivers were not allowed to travel more than 200 feet in the center lane, they would have no objections to the A.B. 414.  Staff had prepared Exhibit C for the Committee. 

 

There is no fiscal note to the bill, as DMV regularly reprints the Driver’s Handbook after each legislative session to incorporate all changes, and A.B. 414 would be included in that process.

 

We have support from law enforcement. Mr. Olsen, Mr. Nadeau, Sergeant Roshak, and perhaps one or two more, are present today.  Washoe County School District is also present in support of the bill, because they believed it would enhance safety for their buses with the amended bill. 

 

I am not aware of any opposition to A.B. 414.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Those entities you have testified to as in support of the bill will have to testify for themselves or put it in writing for the Committee. 

 

The primary amendment language is found on page 2 of Exhibit C, in Section 1, subsection 3. It adds “A vehicle must not travel more than 200 feet in a center turn lane after making a left-hand turn onto the highway before merging with traffic.”

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

After reviewing the amendment again, it appears it may contain a clerical error, because the intent of the amendment, since the 200-foot amendment is already in item b), the intent of the amendment was to establish who has the right-of-way.  If I am not mistaken, that provision does not seem to appear in Exhibit C.  Perhaps Ms. Paslov Thomas can clarify?

Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst:

Page 2 of Exhibit C contains a new subsection in green print.  Since it is conceptual language, we placed it there.  It will be up to the bill drafters to determine where to actually place it.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

Thank you.  Staff has done their usual good work.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

“When two or more vehicles enter the center turn lane, the first vehicle to enter the center lane shall have the right-of-way.”

 

Assemblyman Collins:

For clarification, the first vehicle to enter the center lane would have the right-of-way, so that would be the vehicle in the front?

 

How many citations were given for the offense under current law?

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

When others give their testimony, please be prepared to answer Mr. Collins’ questions.

 

Lonnie Shields, Washoe County School District:

[Introduced himself.]  I am here in support of A.B. 414.  In discussing this bill with Mr. Kurt Svare, Transportation Director, Washoe County School District, he viewed the bill as a positive move for the district. 

 

At the present time there are many instances where buses are required to make a right turn, for safety reasons, and then proceed for several blocks or longer before being able to make a safe left-hand turn to proceed in the direction they needed to go in the first place. 

 

The ability to use the center turn lane, until it would be safe to merge, would not only provide the district with a safe alternative but would possibly result in fuel saving by the district and, thus, to the taxpayer.

 

[Lonnie Shields continued.]  We would especially urge that A.B. 414 be passed without deleting any of the proposed changes to the bill, including the last amendment that was read.  That was the provision that you cannot proceed farther than 200 feet in the center lane, and the center lane cannot be used for any other purpose, which further protects our students and our drivers.

 

I might also mention that Mr. Svare and his staff check every intersection that Washoe County buses use.  If they determined that, even with this law, it would be unsafe for the bus to turn into that center lane, the district would keep using the old method for safety reasons.

 

Major Robert Wideman, Deputy Chief, Northern Command, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), Department of Public Safety:

[Introduced himself.]  The Department of Public Safety has not had the opportunity to review the amendments referenced earlier and has only seen the original bill in draft stages.  However, we have some concerns over the issues that have been brought forward.

 

The primary concern is that the language, as written, creates a circumstance in which two vehicles are traveling in directly opposite directions.  Meanwhile, one of those vehicles, the one attempting to merge into traffic would have its attention diverted more toward the vehicles approaching from its rear.  We are concerned about head-on collision circumstances. 

 

The NHP does not dispute the fact that many drivers do not comply with the law.  However, a similar statement could be made about virtually any other traffic-related law in Nevada Revised Statues (NRS).

 

The circumstances addressed in A.B. 414 would make the NHP more comfortable if the ability to travel in the center lane while merging were eliminated.  We are in support of the provision to define the right-of-way in that situation.  Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Are you comfortable with the amendment that you have heard presented or do you need to review it further?

 

Major Wideman:

The NHP would be more comfortable if the provision to travel 200 feet by the vehicle merging into traffic were eliminated.  We think it would be safer if the vehicle merging into traffic were able to enter the lane, stop, and wait for clearance, as opposed to traveling in the lane in opposition to other vehicles also using the center lane.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Did you express your concerns about the bill to the sponsor of the bill?

 

Major Wideman:

I did not have the opportunity to do so.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I would highly encourage you to do so, because that shows consideration for the sponsor of the bill and for the Chair of the Committee.

 

Do you have any proposed amendments? [Mr. Wideman replied he did not.]

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Regarding the 200-foot driving distance addressed in A.B. 414, what is the current law about traveling in a two-way left turn lane, not counting an intersection? The two-way left turn lane was established for a reason, and I believe current law states, even for vehicles traveling in opposite directions, that

one can travel in that lane up to a set distance.

 

Major Wideman:

Yes, sir.  That is true.  Two vehicles already traveling in opposite directions on the roadway could enter the left-turn lane and both travel up to 200 feet.  However, in that circumstance, the attention of both drivers would be toward the front, providing an opportunity for them to see each other. In the circumstances proposed by the bill, we are concerned that one of the drivers, who was attempting to merge into traffic, would have his attention to the rear, trying to identify breaking traffic.

 

Sergeant Bob Roshak, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association:  

[Introduced himself.]  I am also speaking for Lieutenant Olsen and Jim Nadeau, who were unable to attend the meeting.  We are in support of the bill with the amendment as it stands.

 

We feel that this will help reduce accidents in intersections and allow use of the center turn lane to provide a safe harbor for a vehicle to stop before trying to race across two or three lanes to merge into traffic.  It would be beneficial to the driving public.

 

Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles:

[Introduced herself.]  I wished to inform the Committee that there is no fiscal note for printing the Driver’s Handbook. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Can you clarify the statement that was made to the effect that something that was illegal was stated in the Driver’s Handbook as being legal?

Dana Mathiesen:

The verbiage in the handbook was printed in a manner that could be easily misunderstood.  It said, “turning into a left-turn lane to and from an intersection,” where it should have said, “to.”  It was confusing to the Department also, but it has been corrected and there are new handbooks out.

 

Gary Wolff, Teamsters Union 14:

[Introduced himself.]  The NHP is present to represent itself today, but I do want to go on record for the thousands of drivers of the Teamsters Union in wholehearted support of A.B. 414 as amended.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Are there any questions of Mr. Wolff?  There are none.  Is there anyone else in Carson City or in Las Vegas who wishes to speak in either support or opposition to A.B. 414?  There are none.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

The 200-foot rule was modeled after California usage and, I believe, is consistent with other Nevada law.  If the pleasure of the Committee were to eliminate the rule, I would not object, although I do not think it is as good an option.

 

I thank you for your time and attention and ask your support for A.B. 414.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

How many other states currently had similar laws?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

We attempted to locate that information.  We found statutes on this in Arkansas and California.  I believe other states do it without statute through other resources like their Driver’s handbook.  It is the accepted practice and was enforced in that way.  All states have center lanes.  We anticipated the question, and I wish I had more information for the Committee.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We had a question earlier from Mr. Collins relative to the number of citations issued under the current law.  Is there anyone present from law enforcement who could come forward and respond? [No one came forward.]  If someone could address the question in writing for the Committee, it would be appreciated.

 

I will close the hearing on A.B. 414 and open the hearing on A.B. 299.

 

Assembly Bill 299:  Establishes duties of driver when approaching stopped authorized emergency vehicle under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-184)

 

Assemblyman Bob Beers, Assembly District No. 4:

It is my hope that A.B. 299 will stand out amongst the many opportunities you will be presented this session to legislate common sense.

 

This bill has been brought forward on behalf of a couple of constituents.  Some of our veteran legislators may remember former Assemblyman Bill Kissam.  His son, Bill, Jr., is a firefighter and paramedic in Las Vegas and requested the legislation.

 

Essentially, upon approaching a stopped emergency vehicle parked at the side of a road with its emergency lights on, the bill requires motorists to decrease their speed to a reasonable and proper speed below the speed limit.  The motorist would be required to proceed with caution and be prepared to stop.  If on a two-lane roadway, the motorist would be required to move into the farthest lane away from the stopped peace officer, firefighter, paramedic, or other emergency vehicle operator. It would become a misdemeanor for a motorist to not do so.

 

I would be happy to answer any questions.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I guess, since I am a professional driver, I have all of these questions.  I feel A.B. 299 is a good bill, but I do have one question. Are there any other states that already have this law?  I am aware that most professional truck drivers automatically follow the intent of the bill anyway.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I really do not know.  I think the bill proposes a good idea.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I do, too.  Let’s set the standard.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

The bill only mentions emergency vehicles, but Mr. Beers’ testimony mentioned law enforcement or police.  Should that language be added to the bill?

 

Assemblyman Beers:

It was the intent in the bill draft request of the bill that law enforcement vehicles be included.  I don’t know if an authorized emergency vehicle which is stopped and using flashing lights meets the requirements of NRS 484.787, subsection 3, and captures police vehicles or not.  I presumed that it did.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Some folks behind you are nodding their heads “yes,” and I am sure they will state that in their testimony.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I believe Sergeant Roshak wishes to testify on this bill.

 

Sergeant Bob Roshak, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, and also speaking for Jim Nadeau and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:

[Introduced himself.]  We all support this bill.  When I was a motor officer, I was once on a traffic stop, and a car came down the road while I had my emergency equipment on, and hit the motorcycle and me.  I received a fractured knee, separated shoulder, and a concussion.  I totally agree with A.B. 299 and believe it is necessary.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you.  Could you address Mr. Carpenter’s question?

 

Sergeant Bob Roshak:

As far as I know, a driver must yield to approaching vehicles, but I am not aware of drivers specifically seeing the requirements of the bill as applying to an emergency vehicle, whether it was a police vehicle or a paramedic unit.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Perhaps staff can do some research.

 

Rusty McAllister, Professional Firefighters of Nevada:

We also stand in support of A.B. 299.  We are tasked on numerous occasions to work on the highways in emergency response situations.  We try, to the best of our abilities, to use our fire units in blocking off traffic, but it still does not slow traffic down.  So, reduction of speed and moving to an adjacent lane, if possible, would be a good thing.

 

Major Wideman:

We also would support this bill as written.  I think it is an excellent issue.  I can also tell you that “emergency vehicle” has a specific definition in NRS Chapter 484, which would include police vehicles, fire vehicles, and emergency medical service vehicles.  All of those entities are captured in that definition as it exists.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

As it exists in this bill, is that what do you mean?

 

Major Wideman:

Yes, Ma’am, as stated in the bill where it refers to authorized emergency vehicles being stopped on the side of the road.  The definition of what an authorized emergency vehicle is already exists in NRS and would explain what vehicles qualify under that circumstance.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

How do you interpret the earlier testimony that when vehicles are approaching, their drivers have to pull to the right and stop?  When you are on the side of the road, do drivers just “go blowing right by” currently?

 

Major Wideman:

There is no existing law that defines, when an emergency vehicle is stopped on the side of the road, how approaching traffic from the rear must behave.  There is, of course, a law that describes when the emergency vehicle is behind you with the lights and siren on, a driver must pull over and stop, but there is nothing that describes when the emergency vehicle is already stopped.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Is there anyone else present in Carson City or in Las Vegas who wishes to speak, either for or against A.B. 299?  Seeing none, I would like to send our best regards to former Assemblyman Kissam.  He served our state honorably.  I hereby close the hearing on A.B. 299 and open the hearing on A.B. 367. Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall will preside.

 

Assembly Bill 367:  Makes various changes relating to repair of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-216)

 

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Assembly District No. 28:

[Introduced herself.]  I bring to you today a bill that does need to be amended.  The intent of the bill is to protect consumers whenever their automobile needs repair, to clarify some language, and to protect the businesses of auto repair.

 

I would like to introduce Mr. Spears who can take the Committee through the bill and the amendments with me.

 

Michael Spears, The Auto Body Group:

The changes proposed to NRS 482 would add “front clip assembly” and would define that as a “front inner complete assembly structure.”

 

We would like to amend line 6 of A.B. 367 by changing “front clip assembly” to “front inner complete structure on a unibody vehicle.”

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Page 1, line 6, of A.B. 367?

 

Michael Spears:

Yes, Madam Vice Chair.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

[Read from the bill.] “For purposes of this section, the requisite major components of the vehicle. . .”

 

Michael Spears:

I’m sorry, line 13.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Line 13.  Now that fits.  Go ahead.

 

Mr. Spears:

What we would like to put there is “front inner structure assembly,” and that would include everything that is a weld-on structure from the firewall forward.

 

There are a lot of repairs being done that way now, but technicians are really wary about doing that type of repair.  It is extremely difficult to remove the used assembly from a totaled-out vehicle and install it into a consumer’s vehicle. 

 

To me, the law defines the vehicle as “rebuilt,” because the technician is completely rebuilding the front end from the firewall forward.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Please proceed with the other amendments you wish to request in A.B. 367.

 

Michael Spears:

On page 2, lines 38 and 39 are currently stricken from the bill.  We would like that language left in the bill.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

What effects will that have?

 

Michael Spears:

That will allow direct repair programs to exist, and to continue to exist, in Nevada.

 

Lines 10 and 11, page 3, are currently stricken as well, and I would like to see those remain in the bill.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Again, the effect would be?

 

Michael Spears:

That should allow the Auto Advisory Board to govern over such situations.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

At Section 3, subsection 2, line 3, the entire portion would state, “an insurer of motor vehicles, or a representative of the insurer shall not,“ and then in existing law, “knowingly recommend to an insured,” then adding, “or a claimant,” then in existing language, “or direct an insured or a claimant to a body shop in this state which is not licensed.”

 

Following that phrase, at Section 3, subsection 2b, . . . “may not require an insured or a claimant to patronize any licensed body shop in this state in preference to another such business.”

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

So we are adding back in the language about . . . “in accordance with the statutes?”

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

We are adding back in, “except in accordance with the regulations adopted pursuant to . . .?”  That leaves the preferred list in place so that the insurance companies may continue to take necessary steps to allow the consumer to have their work done by a licensed and qualified repair company that has the proper equipment and which would not perform shoddy work.

 

There are some additional companies that we feel should be added to the preferred list, but Mr. Spears is willing to work with the Division of Insurance and with the board to make the system better in the future.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

With that understanding, this is a skeleton outline of the general intent of conceptual language.  Will Mr. Spears be working with the Committee Staff Advisor to attain the final language, which must be done quickly?

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

Yes, Ma’am, by tomorrow.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

We are now to page 3, line 13, of A.B. 367.  Please continue your presentation of the bill.

 

Michael Spears:

The last amendment we would like to make to the bill is to strike lines 17 through 26 on page 3.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

In other words, all of subsections 3 and 4?

 

Michael Spears:

Yes, Madam Vice Chair.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

And the effect of that change?

 

Michael Spears:

I don’t really think that language will be necessary.  It would save some costs, and it would be difficult to determine when an infraction of that statute would occur.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Would Committee Staff please explain the effects of the bill as amended?

 

Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst:

As written, the bill says that an insured claimant or licensed body shop would have to file a claim with the Commissioner, and, if the Commissioner determines that a violation has occurred, that a fine could be imposed.  It would be up to the Commissioner.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Actually, this is just one of many different complaints that would be made to the Commissioner of Insurance.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

Yes, Ma’am.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

We are not simply giving it a more specified notation, correct?

Assemblywoman Chowning:

Madam Vice Chair, we must make another correction.  Language deleted would be from page 3, lines 12 through 23.  The last additional language remaining in the bill would be lines 24 through 26. 

 

Again, this is another consumer protection that is also good for the insurance companies and the repair companies, which states, “The provisions of this section do not require an insurer to pay more than the reasonable rate required pursuant to a policy of insurance for repairs to a motor vehicle.”

 

In summation, I would like Mr. Spears to state why this bill is necessary and the good that can be accomplished by the measure.

 

Michael Spears:

What I have learned over the past few years is that the majority of customers do not know they have a choice.  They were actually surprised to learn they had a choice of repair shops.  Customers are told they must go to a particular shop; they are not told at all that they have a choice.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Who would be implying that to the customer?

 

Michael Spears:

They would be told by the claims representative to whom they first spoke.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Of the insurance company?

 

Michael Spears:

Yes, Ma’am.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Is the claims person an independent contractor?

 

Michael Spears:

It can be either the company representative or an independent one.  There are independent representatives, and there are agents who work for a specific company.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Are you saying that, if a claimant went to a series of three body shops and got three estimates, they would not be required to accept the lowest estimate?

 

Michael Spears:

That is correct.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Then the insurance company would have to pay the higher value?

 

Michael Spears:

The insurance company would pay for exactly what the damage is. The estimate is exactly that: an estimate.  Until the vehicle is actually in a shop and taken apart, the customer cannot be given a true value for the repairs.  Thus, estimates can vary widely initially, but, once a vehicle is disassembled, for the most part the estimate would be the same at all three shops, because the majority of shops all use the same labor rate.

 

[Mr. Spears also presented a packet of material (Exhibit F) including his testimony and a list of individual signatures in support of A.B. 367.]

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

To ensure I am clear on the amendments to A.B. 367, I take it that lines 14 through 16, Section 3, subsection 2(c), would be deleted so that an insurer could recommend to, but not require, a claimant to use a specific body shop.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

Yes, that is exactly what we are trying to clarify.  A customer should not be directed and required to go to one single repair facility.  However, if that facility is on their preferred list, then, naturally the insurance company will give the claimant that list.  The customer needs to know, clearly, that they have a choice of repair shops.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Does that conclude the presentation?  Are there any questions from the Committee?  Is there anyone present who wishes to speak in favor of the bill?

 

Jim Werbeckes, Farmers Insurance Group: 

[Introduced himself.]  I originally signed up in opposition to the bill. However, just prior to the hearing, I had discussions with Mr. Spears regarding A.B. 367, and the amendments he has made are satisfactory to us.  It would allow us to preserve our direct repair program.  Because of that, we support the bill as currently amended.

Joe Guild III, State Farm Insurance Companies:

[Introduced himself.]  I was also in the pre-hearing meeting with Mr. Spears and Mr. Werbeckes.  State Farm supports the amendments to the bill.  I explained to Mr. Spears that I will need to obtain a final verification, but I’m sure my company will support the proposed amendments.

 

I would like to explain State Farm’s procedure to the Committee.  They do have a preferred list of body and repair shops that meet State Farm’s standards, and the customer is given that list prior to choosing a repair shop.  However, State Farm’s policy is not to recommend any one shop over another and does not direct its insureds to any specific repair facility.  It also tells the claimant that they do not have to use any of the shops on the list.

 

I will speak to Assemblyman Goicoechea’s earlier question.  The specific answer is, when an estimate is made, State Farm allows the claimant to take a higher estimate as their choice of repair shop, but State Farm will pay the costs according to their fee schedule.  For instance, if the choice is for a higher estimate than State Farm will pay, then the claimant has the right to do so, but must pay the difference.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I have a question for clarification, Mr. Guild.  Don’t all the insurance companies have a schedule for repairs on what the insurance company will pay?  The only difference would be if adjustments were made once the vehicle was in the repair shop and negotiations would be made.  Thus, it doesn’t matter whether the claimant goes to the lowest or the highest bidder.  The insurance company sets a parts rate list, somewhat like going to a grocery store and choosing a product brand.

 

Jim Werbeckes:

Most insurance companies use some formula for estimating repairs.  It is exactly the same as auto repair shops use.  Each part has an “hour” attached of how many hours it takes to do a particular repair.

 

With regard to Farmer’s Circle of Dependability repair shops, if a claimant elects to go to a shop on that list, the vehicle is taken in or the shop will pick up the car.  The work can start immediately.  There is no waiting for an adjustor, and it speeds up the process.  We also provide a lifetime warranty on the completed repairs from those shops.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I have a follow-up question.  The board has a list of approved and not approved shops as well, and I think your “Circle of Dependability” shops have to be approved by the board as well.  Some body shops can do certain repairs and some cannot, but nearly all of them can.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

When you are saying a “circle of approved shops,” are you saying approved by the insurance company that will ultimately be paying for the repairs or by whom?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I was just mentioning each insurance company has their list of shops approved as qualified to do the work.  They somewhat self-regulate, in that sense.

 

Joe Guild:

I would be happy, and Mr. Werbeckes would agree as well, to work with Committee staff in preparation of the amendment language for A.B. 367.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Thank you, and anyone else in the room who is able to assist would be greatly appreciated.

 

Does anyone else in the audience wish to speak to the bill.  Please identify yourself for the record and inform us of whether you are for or against A.B. 367.

 

Lisa Foster, American Automobile Association (AAA), Nevada:

[Introduced herself.]  We are in support of the bill with the amendments.

 

The AAA company’s procedure is that when a claimant calls in a claim, they are asked if they have a repair shop preference, and if they say, “Yes,” we allow them to do that with no questions asked.  If they say, “No,” we ask them if they want a recommendation and give them what is called “The Direct Repair Network List,” which is similar to what the other companies discussed. 

 

We are assuming that our process already follows Section 3 of A.B. 367 in making sure no claimant is directed to a specific repair facility.

 

Gil Grieve, Owner, Concourse Body Shop:

[Introduced himself.]  I have been in the repair industry for 25 years and owned my own facility for 18 years. 

 

The concept of the bill has been proposed throughout the past 10 years.  I wish to further amend Section 1. 

 

Due to the way some vehicles were manufactured, roof panels can sometimes become a structural component of the vehicle, and, if they have minor damage, they should be replaced to maintain structural integrity.  The roof panel itself would probably be defined under “a front or rear clip,” in my opinion.  Thus, the words “roof assembly” should be deleted in that section.  It is very common to repair a quarter panel or door skin, which are the sides of the vehicle. 

 

Section 1, subsection 5, states “conventional frames coupled with one additional major component.”  Some of the conventional frames, due to design, are virtually unable to be repaired because of the type of materials they are made from.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

I ask you to submit your proposals in writing.

 

Gil Grieve:

Yes, Ma’am, I will. 

 

Direct repair is a necessary “evil” of the industry, although it is good for the industry. A direct repair is an instance where the insurance company would prefer a repair shop of their choice.  There are insured who wish to be directed to a facility. 

 

There are many programs through different insurance companies that provide for the situation where there is a business arrangement with a client that would be damaged; they are very much detoured from that repair shop for service.  A.B. 367, as written, would stop that.  The fee on the repair facilities needs to come from the consumers, not from the carriers.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

You’re viewing that as a measure for consumer protection, correct?

 

Gil Grieve:

Yes, Ma’am. That would be a consumer protection issue, and something that is currently desperately needed.  Thank you very much.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Is there anyone here or in Las Vegas who wishes to testify on A.B. 367?

 

Rick Schneider, Agent, Farmers Insurance:

[Introduced himself.]  I am in support of A.B. 367 with the amendments.

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Do you agree with previous testimony or do you have further testimony to provide?

 

Rick Schneider:

I do agree.  However, I would like to reiterate from the perspective of an insurance agent.  I have an office on Rainbow Boulevard in Las Vegas.  I was born and raised in Las Vegas, and I have been with Farmers Insurance, as an agent, for over 20 years.  My father is a partner in the business, as well, and has been in the business for over 40 years.  Our firm has between 13,000 to 14,000 clients in the Las Vegas area.

 

I am very much for the “preferred body shop” within insurance companies.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Is that what others have termed “direct repair?”

 

Rick Schneider:

Yes.  We, as insurance agents, sell a promise when we sell a policy to a customer.  The promise is to take care of them in their time of need, which is certainly when they have a vehicle accident.  We don’t use a preferred, or “Circle of Dependability,” body shop.  We seek consistent compliance, and this is not the case when we use a  “preferred or Circle” shop.  As agents, we receive letters on a regular basis congratulating us on the referral to these preferred shops, and, at the end of the day, that makes our job very easy. 

 

I have a letter from a client and if I may have the liberty to read it?

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

You may read it, if it is not too long.  Also, please submit copies for the Committee.

 

Rick Schneider:

[He read part of a letter from Toni McFarland dated March 31, 2003.]  

 

Just a quick note to let you know that my experience with the COD shop you sent me to, due to a recent auto accident, at Auto Magic, was a great experience.  I was treated with the utmost respect and consideration. 

 

This is very consistent with service I get whenever I deal with you or one of your staff members.

 

All repairs were done on a timely basis, and to my satisfaction.  A small problem arose with my car.  I returned to Auto Magic.  They addressed the problem immediately and took care of it for me.

 

I thank you again for sending me to them and always helping address all of my insurance needs.  I would feel very comfortable to refer anybody to your agency or should they have an insurance situation.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

We have the following signed up to testify on A.B. 367: David Epley, Robert Compan, Frank Dischben, and Susan Bithell.

 

[It was related that the above people had left.]

 

Mike Harris, AA Row Auto Dismantling:

[Introduced himself.]  We represent a minor fraction of the industry, and we support the bill with one exception.  That would be Mr. Spears’ amended description of the front clip assembly.  I understand it was not in writing; however, he stated it was the front inner structure assembly on a unibody vehicle from the firewall forward.  That is a very common repair with OEM [Original Equipment Manufacturer] parts as well as used auto parts.

 

I am present representing the use of used auto parts, which are a big factor in vehicle repair throughout the nation.  AA Row of Nevada has been licensed with the state for 40 years.  We are a major supplier of used parts in southern Nevada.

 

We take exception to the description of front clip assembly because, as a used part, it is defined as Mr. Spears suggested.  However, with OEM parts, one could say it is the same thing, but by that description, the front inner structure cannot be replaced without identifying the vehicle as “rebuilt.”  I would say that is a very common repair.  Mr. Spears alluded to the fact that it was difficult to perform.  However, I have been doing business in southern Nevada for over 30 years, and I sat on the Governor’s Advisory Board for Auto Repairs for 3 years. 

 

To eliminate this type of repair is very wrong.  A better description, if one wanted to be concerned about the front clip, would be that on a car that included the cowl, I believe everyone would agree that the vehicle should become a “rebuilt” vehicle.

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

There are no others present to testify.  I declare the hearing on A.B. 367 closed.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

[Resumed the Chair.]  Mr. Capurro, would you mind if we took A.B. 518 before your bill to accommodate those who must make airline connections?

 

Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association:

I am just here to listen to testimony on the bills reflected on the agenda today.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Atkinson will need to have his bill heard last today.

 

I hereby open the hearing on A.B. 518.

 

 Assembly Bill 518:  Temporarily prohibits increase in number of limousines in operation and directs legislative study of issues relating to allocation of limousines. (BDR S-1102)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Welcome to the Committee on Transportation.  Please proceed.

 

Mike Sullivan, Whittlesea Bell Transportation:

[Introduced himself.]  I am here today to present A.B. 518.  The preamble for the bill does a good job of describing it. 

 

The limousine industry in southern Nevada is in dire need of this measure.  Every major limousine company owner signed letters that have been provided to the Committee (Exhibit G) in support of this measure.  These are very competitive people, yet they realize that A.B. 518 is extremely important for the safety and integrity of this industry.  They represent more than 85 percent of the limousines operating in southern Nevada, and their unity underscores the need for action.

 

This measure is very much like what was done for the Las Vegas taxicab industry in the late 1960s.  The moratorium provision is only a temporary measure until we can decide how to best fix the problem of too many limousines on the streets.

 

The study provision would look at the measure in order to make a determination on using an allocation system or whether another measure recommended by the study committee is best.  We would be coming back before you, in the next legislative session, with some answers to those questions.

This is not an attempt to stifle competition or to keep anyone from entering the market.  It is an attempt to salvage a very, very important industry to our tourist economy and make it healthy again.

 

[Mr. Sullivan continues.]  I have provided amendment language (Exhibit H), which would exempt all of the state, with the exception of Clark County, because they are the only area currently affected.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.  The amendment is here (Exhibit H).  Section 1 would be changed so that the bill would apply only to counties with a population over 600,000 or more.

 

Would you please explain the second part of the amendment?  Why are you choosing to eliminate lines 11 through 17 of A.B. 518?  That would remove the language:

 

A certificate of public convenience and necessity for the operation of a livery or a traditional limousine issued to a fully regulated carrier of passengers by the Transportation Services Authority is void and revoked to the extent that the carrier has not purchased, before the effective date of this act, each authorized limousine covered by the certificate of public convenience and necessity.

 

Mr. Sullivan:

Obviously, we thought, when this act was considered, there might be a rush to try to “get in under the wire,” so we were trying to ensure the bill covered what was currently “on the streets.”  Some companies have different certificates, such as 15 limousines or unlimited limousines, so we wanted the amendment to consider only what was currently on the streets to be the market upon passage of A.B. 518.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

And that is reiterated in line 21, “reflects the number of limousines actually registered in the state of Nevada on the effective date of this act.”

 

Mr. Sullivan:

Yes, and, because some companies operate in other states as well, that language would ensure that companies who operated in other states, such as California and Arizona, could not say, “I came in, I had some limousines I used in the state,” and use those in the state.  The vehicles must be actually registered and currently in use within the state.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you very much.  You have made it clear.  Are there any questions of Mr. Sullivan?  There are none.

 

Brent Bell, Chief Operating Officer, Whittlesea Bell Transportation, representing Bell Trans Limousines, Las Vegas, and Presidential Limousine:

[Introduced himself.]  I would like to share with you some of the experiences of our industry with respect to public safety because of the over-saturation of limousines in Las Vegas.

 

First and foremost is the insurance issue.  There are several operators who are unable to afford liability insurance.  Obviously, they provide proof of insurance at the time they are certificated, but, when things get tough, that becomes one of the first payments they fail to make.  Liability insurance is crucial to the industry.

 

Second is the inability to perform proper maintenance by some companies on some of their vehicles.  I was hoping to bring a member of the TSA [Transportation Services Authority] here to testify and explain to you the increase in the number of citations written and the problems they are having with some of the operators who are unable to afford their insurance bills and maintain their vehicles correctly.  However, the TSA bill is before the Senate Committee at this same time, so they were unable to attend.

 

Finally, there are several drivers who work for legitimate limousine companies and who are having a very tough time making a living in Las Vegas.  There are practices, such as price-gouging happening, which can have a severe effect on the tourism industry.  For example, there have been several horror stories of when there is a big prizefight scheduled in town, and someone wants to go down the street, the cost is $100.  The fee, at other times would be $35.  To the opposite extreme, when things are extremely slow, a limousine ride can be arranged for $5 or $10.  Those practices get into predatory pricing and into the taxicab industry.  That generates complaints and issues with taxicab drivers and limousine drivers fighting and competing for the same customer.  We simply shouldn’t have that.  If limousine drivers were charging the proper rates, then they would not cross over into the taxicab industry.  That is also a major problem and concern of ours.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Are you in agreement with the items listed on page 3 of Exhibit H detailing the subjects for the interim study committee?  These would include whether or not an allocation system is appropriate, whether the budgetary needs of the TSA are being met concerning these issues, and any other issues in the regulation of limousines, as the committee deems appropriate.

 

What might be another issue that you would see possibly being brought before this interim study committee?

 

Brent Bell:

The most important issue would be the allocation that the industry feels they need to allow time to evaluate in putting together a system that would be fair for all the operators in Las Vegas.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Do you think that another item for discussion by the interim committee might be the stretch limousine issue that had considerable discussion in the Seventy-first Legislative Session?

 

Brent Bell:

That is absolutely correct.  There are several issues concerning limousines being too long and unsafe with poor turning radii.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

For the benefit of new Committee members, the Chairwoman and I worked with these gentlemen into the last moments of the previous legislative session on limousine concerns.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The regulation of the limousine bill was one of the very last measures in the very last moments to be dealt with. Mr. Oceguera chaired the conference subcommittee and a great deal of work was required.  Our former Assemblyman, Senator, and Assembly Committee on Transportation Chairman, Len Nevin, is in the audience, and I am sure he will agree that it is a great testament to the industry that they are working so well together to try to protect good businesses and to protect consumers.  We are grateful.

 

Jack Owens, Star Limousine, Las Vegas: 

I stand in support of A.B. 518, and I think the rest of the testimony speaks for itself.  Thank you.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Do the limousines we see being run by various hotels belong to them?  How would they be affected by this legislation?

Brent Bell:

I guess I am the best person to answer that question, because the majority of limousines operating from the hotels are operated by my company.  There are some hotels, such as MGM Mirage and a couple of other properties, which own and operate their own limousines.  However, the bill would not affect them, because they are not operating limousines for the sake of profit.  They are simply moving their own people.

 

Norman Ty Hilbrecht, Attorney, on behalf of Las Vegas Limousines and Airline Limousine Corporation in Clark County:

[Introduced himself.]  We view this legislation as, principally, a consumer protection measure.  The background Mr. Bell alluded to, but did not elaborate on, arises out of the discovery, in recent years, that there appears to be an increasing overlap between the taxicab industry and movements being made by the limousines.

 

You will recall, during the Seventy-first Legislative Session, there were discussions regarding the unhappy problems that arose in the 1960s in the taxicab industry.  We feel that similar problems are approaching in the limousine industry.

 

Keep in mind issues of safety, and vehicles that are not properly maintained.  I was shown, as late as noon today, statistics compiled by the TSA, which they have only begun collecting in the past 2 years. It compared a 2-year period with the current year and showed that citations were increased remarkably regarding vehicles ordered out of service because of unsafe conditions.  In the first 4 months of 2003, they nearly equal the entire number in the 12-month period of 2002. 

 

That is aside from the problems of insurance, which are very difficult to get precise information on.  Thus, we believe it is really a consumer protection issue.

 

In addition, however, there is the problem of tariff violations, which means a driver, in certain periods of time, entirely disregards the published tariff and charges exorbitant rates at one time and, basically, gives the service away at another time.  Those actions reflect poorly on an economy as sensitive as ours.

 

We have not asked the Committee to “bite the bullet” and select allocation, which many of us believe would be the answer to the issue.  We have said, “Give this agency two years to catch up with the overwhelming number of applications it has had in recent months, so that we can know we are selecting the best regulatory scheme to deal with this problem.”

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We thank you for bringing those facts forward and reminding us of the need for the legislation.  Most importantly, what happened in the late 1960s with the taxicabs in Las Vegas; many of us were residents there during that time.  The taxicab wars resulted in terrible injuries, and many people never returned to Nevada, because of their poor experiences.  We do not ever want that to happen again.  We do not want that same situation to happen in the limousine industry.

 

I do have a question to the members present who helped draft A.B. 518.  That is on page 3, line 20, of the amendment language (Exhibit H).  It asks that the interim committee hold at least eight meetings while conducting the study.  Is that something that should be changed?  Hopefully, some agreements could be made in fewer than eight meetings.  The current amendment language mandates that money be spent for specifically eight meetings.  Probably three or four meetings would be sufficient.

 

Mr. Sullivan:   

Definitely.  That language was drafting language from the LCB [Legislative Counsel Bureau], and we are fine with whatever you feel is appropriate.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Good.  I am not certain we would have to specify any number of meetings.  Perhaps it should read that the committee be created and they ”shall” hold meetings.  If that is agreeable, thank you.

 

Is there anyone here or in Las Vegas who wishes to speak for or against A.B. 518?  There are none.

 

Thank you for all of the good work, and we will take the amendments into consideration.

 

Committee members, because this bill will have to be rereferred to the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics for action on the language of Section 2 regarding the interim study, the Chair will accept a motion.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 518 WITH THE AMENDMENT BEING THE LANGUAGE PROVIDED AND THE CHAIR’S PROPOSAL REGARDING THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS STATING “AT LEAST THREE MEETINGS.”

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Is your motion also to refer A.B. 518 to the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics?

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Certainly, if you wish to do so.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We will adjourn the hearing on A.B. 518 and open the hearing on A.B. 417. Assemblyman Atkinson, we apologize for keeping your bill until the last.

 

Assembly Bill 417:  Establishes procedures for claims against bonds and deposits of certain persons licensed by Department of Motor Vehicles. (BDR 43-1077)

 

Assemblyman Kelvin Atkinson, Assembly District No. 17:

[Introduced himself.]  I am here to present A.B. 417 to the Committee with amendments (Exhibit I).  The Committee should also have received copies of the testimony of Mr. Dan L. Wulz (Exhibit J).

 

Assembly Bill 417 seeks to amend Chapter 482 of the Nevada Revised Statutes in a very meaningful way on behalf of Nevada consumers.  You see, Chapter 482 of NRS requires vehicle dealers to file a bond in the amount of $50,000 with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to obtain a license to do business in the state.  In lieu of a bond, a cash deposit can be submitted to the Department.

 

The purpose of the bond or deposit is to cover any act or acts on the part of the vehicle dealer that causes loss to a purchaser, manufacturer, or the Department.

 

Subsection 1 of NRS 482.345 states, “and conditioned that the dealer shall conduct his business as a dealer without breaching a customer contract or engaging in a deceptive trade practice, fraud, or fraudulent representation, and without violation of the provisions of this chapter.” 

 

Subsection 5 of NRS 482.345 describes a simple procedure for an injured party to make a claim through the DMV for compensation against a vehicle dealer’s bond or deposit.  I believe the procedure is lacking important details.

 

A.B. 417 seeks to provide those details.  For instance, the bill provides that an injured party is not required to reduce his claim to a judgment before filing a claim for compensation with the Department.  The bill also provides that a claim filed by a consumer is a preferred claim.

 

In the event a bond is insufficient to pay all consumer claims in full, the bill provides that the consumer claimants will be paid in proportion to the amount of their respective claims.

 

It also provides that partial payment of claims is not full payment, so the claimants may bring action against the dealer for unpaid balances.  An approved claim drawing interest can draw interest from the date of approval until the claim is paid under the terms of the bill.

 

The amendment language is modeled after NRS 624.273, a contractor’s bond statute and would make the rights and remedies of claimants, in both Chapters 482 and 624 of NRS, contain similar language.

 

This concludes my testimony, and I have some experts present to further address the bill before I take any questions.

 

Dan L. Wulz, an attorney appearing as a citizen:

[Mr. Wulz introduces himself and reads from Exhibit J.] 

 

My work has brought me into contact with many Nevada consumers adversely affected by the actions of car dealers.  Last session, I was involved in changing NRS Chapter 482 regarding dealer bonds.  The law was changed to remove the limitation that an action on a bond recovery be limited to the value of the car.  At that time, we did not foresee that this could create a situation where the first person to collect on the bond could exhaust the bond leaving other deserving consumers without a source of funds to compensate that. This bill, A.B. 417, will correct that problem.  In that regard, the bill provides for pro rata distribution.

 

The bill will also correct the problem of nonconsumers making claims to and exhausting the bond, before consumers are compensated.  I believe it was always the legislative intent in requiring a bond, that it be available for the claims of consumers cheated by car dealers.  However, the law is silent in that respect, and, as a result, it has not always been so interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court.  This bill provides that claims of consumers have priority.

 

Further, in order to ensure that the bond will be available for consumer claims, the bill provides for a 2-year time limit – by the way, a recent amendment would change that to 3 years – in which to make a claim, and provides that nonconsumer claims will not be paid before that time expires.

 

[Mr. Wulz continues to read from Exhibit J.]

 

Lastly, the amendments offered, which I support and which I believe have the support of the Department of Motor Vehicles, are taken from the contractor’s bond statute, NRS 624.273.  The amendment to provide for a 2-year limit – and, again, I think we are going to amend the amendments to provide for a 3-year limit on commencing an action on a bond – and provide for notification to a claimant of competing claims, provide for good faith payments without court action, and provide that in the event there are competing claimants, an interpleader action may be filed in court.  All of this is current practice under the contractor’s bond statute.

 

This bill is good for consumers and should not impact car dealers or their sureties, as it does not increase the amount of the bond.  Rather, the bill provides greater clarity and for a fair procedure when multiple claims may exceed the bond amount.

 

I urge the passage of A.B. 417 with the amendments. 

 

In the hour before I appeared today, I discussed this again, by telephone, with Mr. Benzler of the DMV, and, also, with someone from the Attorney General’s Office, and we agreed on three amendments to the amendment (Exhibit K).  I am not sure Assemblyman Atkinson received those.  Those were recently e‑mailed to him and faxed up to the Committee with my testimony. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We believe we have those.  Number one is the change to 3 years.  Number 2, in paragraph 2, should state, “Upon receiving your request for whose benefit a bond or deposit is required the Director shall . . .” And that should be changed to “Upon receiving a claim upon a bond or deposit the Director shall . . .”

 

Number 3, at the end of the third paragraph, it appears you would like to add language to the effect that the Department may promulgate regulations to carry out the provisions.”  Is that correct?

 

Dan Wulz:

That is correct, and, if Mr. Benzler is there, he can address that also.

 

Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance and Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles: 

I am here today to provide testimony in support of A.B. 417 and to thank Mr. Atkinson and the Committee for bringing this issue forward.

 

If passed, A.B. 417 will reduce to law what has been inferred in state policy since bonds and deposits were required to be posted as a condition of licensing.  That is, that those bonds are primarily intended to protect the vehicle-purchasing public.

 

A.B. 417 will clearly state and place in law, that consumers have the superior claim against a bond or deposit and that all other claims, such as unpaid bills, financial obligations, or even administrative fines, are secondary and fall behind those of the consumer.

 

Additionally, by providing for minimum notification requirements, the bill will help to eliminate the “first come, first served” circumstances that can occur under the current law, whereby a single claimant can consume an entire bond or deposit with one claim, and people who have other potential claims never have a chance for theirs to be heard.

 

We feel this is a good bill for all concerned.  It does not adversely affect the dealers.  It doesn’t adversely affect the sureties.  We urge the Committee to pass A.B. 417.  I would add that I have spoken with Mr. Wulz, and we do concur with the amendments he has offered.  I would be happy to answer any questions.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I think you have made the benefits to the consumers of this state very clear.  Mr. Atkinson, do you agree with the amendments that have been presented?  It is a one-page document, correct?

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

Yes, Madam Chair, I had my attaché retype them. Yes, I do agree with the amendments.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Does everyone understand the amendments and the goal of the bill presented?  The Chair will accept a motion.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 417.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I hereby close the hearing on A.B. 417 and convene the Committee in work session.  Please turn to A.B. 226 in the work session document (Exhibit L).

 

 Assembly Bill 226:  Requires certain passengers of taxicabs to wear safety belts. (BDR 43-1079)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

A.B. 226, with the amendment, will require that adult passengers in a taxicab must wear seatbelts.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

I will quickly review the amendments.  The first amendment would amend the bill as a whole to delete the term “limousines.”  The second amendment would delete the provision requiring drivers of taxicabs to wear seatbelts.  Specifically, under Tab A, you will see the mock-up of the amended bill.  Page 1, Section 1, subsection 2, would delete the section stating, “The driver of a taxicab or limousine shall not allow any passenger who is 4 years old or younger or who weighs less than 40 pounds to ride in the front seat of the taxicab or limousine.”  This was proposed to make the bill consistent with existing provisions of NRS regarding where child restraint devices for children can be placed in a vehicle.

 

The final amendment would allow an adult passenger, who does not wear a safety belt, to be issued a citation if that vehicle is halted or its driver is arrested for another alleged violation or offense.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Does everyone understand?  The amendments would make A.B. 226 consistent with other Nevada law that adult passengers must wear seat belts.  It also requires taxicabs to have a sign in the vehicle stating that, “Adult passengers must wear a seat belt according to Nevada Revised Statutes.”

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The Chair will accept a motion.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 226.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We will turn to A.B. 444.

 

Assembly Bill 444:  Makes various changes relating to traffic laws. (BDR 43-1098)

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

This bill increases penalties for certain traffic laws in temporary traffic control zones.  The measure would extend the provisions regarding double penalties to other traffic offenses committed in construction zones.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The information regarding A.B. 444 will be behind Tabs C, D, and E, in Exhibit L.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

This bill increases penalties for violations of traffic laws such as:

 

• Driving in the wrong lane
• Illegal passing
• Illegal turns
• Aggressive driving
• Driving under the influence
• Driving with a windshield obscured

 

Further, a double penalty would apply, not only when workers are present, but also when they are not present, when the highway is under construction and its condition is such that it would aggravate the hazards of traffic violations.

 

Under Tab C of Exhibit L is Assemblyman Carpenter’s amendment that would add a new section to the bill, providing that blue lights may be displayed on vehicles, including snow removal equipment used by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), when authorized workers are present and performing construction or maintenance activities in a clearly marked area of the highway.

 

[Marji Paslov Thomas continues.]  Also included is the letter that was requested from Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director of Operations at NDOT, regarding the recommendation to use blue warning lights on maintenance vehicles.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

In summation of the letter, the workers are saying that the task force is in support of the blue light.  They also highlighted the tragedy that occurred on November 27, 2002, which prompted the legislation.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

The next proposed amendment is from Skip Daly, of the Laborer’s Union Local 169, and Ruedy Edgington, of NDOT.  The amendment would be applied to Section 17, page 8, line 17, to add after the section, “Double penalties in work zones.”

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

What does that do?

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

It adds that language on the sign.

 

The other recommendation was to answer Assemblyman Claborn’s question about whether an amendment would cover all drivers and workers in work zones including those other than NDOT employees.  They are suggesting to add language that says, “or an employee carrying out the duties of his employment when certified as a flagman under a program recognized by the Department of Transportation.”

 

The fourth amendment proposal was from Dan Musgrove, representing Clark County, which applied to the same section [Section 17], subsection 3, and would amend the bill to add, “or an employee of a governmental entity or of a contractor performing highway construction or maintenance for the governmental entity while he is carrying out the duties of his employment.”

Hopefully, that should cover all the flaggers.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This is exactly what was stated in the previous hearing.  Are there any questions?

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 444 WITH ALL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

I am in support of all the provisions in this bill except for the blue light. 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Doesn’t the blue light provision just expand the bill that has already passed out of Committee?  Is it different than the taillights on snow equipment?  Those were on motorcycles, for clarification.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

This bill would provide permissive language allowing NDOT to place blue lights on their maintenance vehicles, including those used for snow removal vehicles.  It is different than the other bill.  They are not currently allowed to do that, as only emergency vehicles are currently allowed to use blue lights.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This is permissive language stating they “may” allow and only applies to the Nevada Department of Transportation when workmen are present and performing construction or maintenance activities.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Are you talking about placing the blue lights on top of the cab of the vehicle like other emergency vehicles versus on the taillights?

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

That would apply to both the taillights and to a flashing light on top.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

In my read of the bill, I really thought it was just on the taillights, because they are not emergency vehicles performing first aid or rescue.  I would have to agree with Mr. Oceguera, unless it was restricted to taillights to prevent rear-end collisions.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I thought it would apply to both the taillights and the revolving light on top.  I think the taillights are most important on snowplows.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Do you want that portion of your amendment to apply only to taillights?  I think that might be a very good idea.

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I would amend it to however it can get passed.  I think it is very important for those people out on the highway to have this added safety precaution. The provision is not mandatory, so I would think NDOT could make that decision.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I would presume that you would have red taillights and the blue flashing light for an emergency.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Would you entertain a limitation just to snow removal equipment, because I think the bill is referencing a blue strobe light and I think everyone concurs that, in the snow, the blue light is easier to see?  I understand Mr. Oceguera’s concern.  I would not want to see every state vehicle have a blue light on it.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I concur with our fireman from Las Vegas.  Being a driver and having been in those conditions many times, if I were to see flashing blue lights behind me, I would pull over. That would interfere with the safe operation of that snowplow.  The lights should only be on the rear of the snowplow to avoid confusion.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I don’t see how it can only be limited to snowplows, because a lot of those trucks are used for snow removal and for maintenance functions.  If we could limit use to a flashing light on top that would be fine.  We need to allow them to do this and see what difference is made.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I think the members of the Committee are talking about having this be able to be allowed on the taillights only.  If people think about a law enforcement officer who has the blue taillight, it is very visible.  If the light is placed on the top of the vehicle, it could certainly be confused with another type of emergency vehicle.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

What if we changed it to a flashing blue rear taillight?

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I don’t think you would even need to say “flashing.”  It could just be stated, “to allow that blue lights may be displayed on the taillights of vehicles, including snow removal equipment used by Nevada’s Department of Transportation.”

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I think it might be wise to leave the word “taillight” out and say, “on the rear of the vehicle” so there won’t be any confusion, if the blue lights are not manufactured as taillights?

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Madam Chair, I am not sure about that idea, because that would then allow leeway to mount the light high on the vehicle.  The language would really need to be specific, if that option was chosen.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I thought we were only dealing with taillights to begin with.  There are national standards describing different categories of safety and lifesaving vehicles, and we typically comply with federal highway laws.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We will end this discussion.  Mr. Carpenter, would you like to restate your amendment to add a new section to allow that blue lights may be displayed on taillights of vehicles, including snow removal equipment?

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I agree.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Claborn, are you willing to make that a part of your motion?

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Yes, Madam Chair.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Carpenter, is that a part of your second on the motion to amend and do pass A.B. 444?  [He nodded his head affirmatively.]

 

Is there any further discussion? 

 

THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 444 PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairwoman Chowning:

The last bill we will consider today is A.B. 406, found behind Tab B of Exhibit L.

 

 

Assembly Bill 406:  Revises provisions governing driving privileges for certain persons with epilepsy. (BDR 43-1166)

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

This bill revises provisions governing driving privileges for certain persons with epilepsy.

 

To refresh the Committee’s memory about the bill as introduced: it requires that a person with epilepsy not operate a vehicle once he has been informed by a physician that his condition would severely impair his ability to drive safely.  The bill deletes provisions requiring physicians to report to the Health Division every person diagnosed with epilepsy. Further, A.B. 406 removes provisions requiring the Health Division to report this information to the DMV.

 

Instead, the bill requires physicians to inform the patient of the dangers of operating a motor vehicle.  The patient must sign a statement acknowledging he has been informed of the dangers.  If the patient refuses to sign the statement, the physician shall sign a written statement verifying that the patient was given all the information and, upon the request of the DMV, the physician shall provide a copy of this statement to the DMV.

 

There are some proposed amendments located under Tab B of Exhibit L.  The first one would amend the bill by adding a new section to permit voluntary reporting by a physician of a patient with physical or mental conditions that impairs the patient’s ability to exercise reasonable and ordinary control over a motor vehicle to the DMV.  The amendment is based on the suggested model language provided by the American Academy of Neurology, American Epilepsy Society, and the Epilepsy Foundation of America. 

 

Secondly, an amendment was proposed using the model language to provide immunity for physicians who voluntarily report a patient with physical or mental conditions that, again, impair that patient’s ability to exercise reasonable and ordinary control over a motor vehicle to the DMV.

 

The third proposed amendment, also based on the model language, would add a new section to the bill to give immunity to physicians for their reports, recommendations, and opinions that are submitted to the DMV regarding their patient’s abilities to exercise reasonable and ordinary control over motor vehicles.

 

[Marji Paslov Thomas continues.]  Amendment four would amend the bill in Section 1, subsection 2, lines 1 through 6, on page 2, to allow physicians to report patient information to the DMV in a confidential manner.

 

The fifth amendment to A.B. 406 on page 3, Section 4, subsection 4, lines 33 to 37, would provide that a physician may give the DMV a copy of a patient’s signed statement that acknowledges the physician informed him of the dangers of operating a motor vehicle because, as the bill is originally written, that provision was a requirement.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Dr. Hardy, would you please come forward in case there are any questions.

 

Assemblyman Joe Hardy, Assembly District No. 20:  

I am available to answer questions.

 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 406.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I will support the bill if physicians are willing to fill out yet one more form.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Assemblyman Hardy, are the doctors in agreement to complete yet one more form?

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

I think the doctors will much appreciate the action of the Committee, because their patients will be able to have a more true doctor/patient relationship that will enhance their care.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

What happens if one doctor signs the form stating a patient has epilepsy and should not be driving, and the patient gets another doctor’s opinion that states the patient is perfectly able to drive a vehicle?

Assemblyman Hardy:

“Every doctor is right no matter how often they disagree.”  There will be circumstances where one doctor may disagree with another.  The key is the opportunity for the patient to seek appropriate care so one may seek a specialist who does something in the way of treatment that actually changes the condition.  We hope that the patient will be adequately treated.

 

One provision of the bill allows the patient to “confess,” as it were, to his/her physician that he or she has had another seizure.  That allows the patient to not fear punitive damages because they are ill.  It allows treatment to take place, rather than having the condition hidden from the physician.

 

Thus, there are some ramifications of the bill, but the bottom line is that seizure disorders are very treatable. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

On the motion to amend and do pass A.B. 406, all those in favor please say aye.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Seeing no further business to come before the Committee, we are adjourned. [The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.]

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                                           

Cindy Clampitt

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman

 

 

DATE: