MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
February 20, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportationwas called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 1:37 p.m., on Thursday, February 20, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Mark E. Amodei (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O’Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Sande III, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association
Ralph Felices, Chief Investigator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Jack Jeffrey, Concerned Citizen
Larry Whitson, Captain, Nevada Highway Patrol
Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, American Automobile Association of Nevada
Fred Droes, Chief Traffic, Safety, and ITS Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation
Chairman Shaffer:
We have an agency Bill Draft Request (BDR) 58-537. I would like a committee introduction. It makes changes to provisions governing certain motor carriers and drivers.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 58-537: Makes various changes to provisions governing certain motor carriers and drivers. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 192.)
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 58-537.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 69.
SENATE BILL 69: Revises requirements concerning consignment of vehicles. (BDR 43-86)
Senator Ann O’Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5:
When a person gives a car to a car lot to be sold on consignment, they do not realize a claim or report must be filed with the Secretary of State that they have done this. That is what happened in the case of a lady who lost her car as described in an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Obscure law leads to loss of Cadillac” (Exhibit C).
Jeannine Huckleberry entered into a contract with a used car lot dealer to put her 1995 Cadillac for sale on consignment. The agreement stated the dealer would receive 10 percent of the amount she collected from the sale of her car. One day when she drove by the car lot, she noticed her car was gone. The business had gone into bankruptcy and the finance company had taken all stock from this car lot.
Even though Ms. Huckleberry had a contract with the car dealer and she held title to the car, there was no way to recover her car or receive payment because she was not aware of the need to file a form with the Secretary of State for this type of consignment. The majority of the public would not know about this requirement unless the person they were leaving the automobile with gave them proper information.
This bill does two things; it requires the dealership to assist the person in filling out papers necessary to file with the Secretary of State, and it provides a penalty to the dealership if they do not comply with this requirement.
Chairman Shaffer:
It sounds like a good bill to me.
Senator Hardy:
I have read the article to which you are referring. At one time I was involved in a family business dealing with consignments. I was unaware that was or could be the case. Have you looked into a way we might be able to help Ms. Huckleberry?
Senator O’Connell:
I do not know this lady. When I read the article, I was amazed something like that could happen and felt we should look into this. I do not think this is a common occurrence, but it was devastating to Ms. Huckleberry.
Senator Hardy:
This type of situation gives the industry a bad name. I understand there could be other issues not brought out in the article. Maybe there is a compelling reason this company has taken the position they have, but I would be interested in seeing if there is anything we could do to help Ms. Huckleberry.
Senator O’Connell:
Ms. Huckleberry had a competent attorney that tried to help. This bill is meant to be a simple process of adding additional information to the contract between the private owner and the dealership handling the consignment. The owner of the property would be notified of the necessity of filing proper forms with the Secretary of State to protect merchandise being left with the consignment dealer. In talking to my attorney it seems it might not be so simple.
Senator Care:
Senator O’Connell showed me the article. On the surface it would seem ludicrous that there not be any recourse for Ms. Huckleberry. I would be interested in hearing other testimony on this bill.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else in support of this bill?
John Sande III, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association:
We are in support of this bill. The victim here held title to this car. We would ask before you process this bill to ask legal counsel to take a look at it. How could this have happened? Is there a chance the lender on these vehicles was able to rely on an oral or written representation of the dealer basically saying these were his cars? We would certainly support S.B. 69 and think it is an appropriate action.
Ralph Felices, Chief Investigator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
Our division is closely responsible for regulation of motor vehicle dealers and various other businesses within the State. We are in favor of S.B. 69. It is a good consumer protection bill.
One of our salvage pull businesses stated their entire business is related to consignments from insurance companies. Although this law has been in effect for several years, we have never construed it to incorporate their sales as part of Chapter 42 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) which is closely related to dealer sales. We have always regulated and enforced this law on that entity only and would not want to construe it to incorporate other businesses for which it was not designed.
Jack Jeffrey, Concerned Citizen:
I represent B & E Auto Auction. We do not take a position on S.B. 69. It sounds like a good bill. I am here is to ask for an exemption for salvage pull yards, as was stated by the previous witness. Salvage pull yards deal only with insurance companies, not with the public, and should not come under this bill.
Senator Care:
Regarding Mr. Sande’s comments, we are not altering the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC); it addresses the priority issue here. What we are saying is there is an obligation on the individual who owns the car lot to do certain things. If he does not, he could be found guilty of a misdemeanor and would also have to pay restitution. I want to make certain if this were to happen again, he could not say, “I cannot pay the restitution because I am in bankruptcy.” I want to make sure a bankruptcy court could not discharge that obligation.
Chairman Shaffer:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 69 and open the hearing on S.B. 77.
SENATE BILL 77: Requires driver of vehicle entering or exiting controlled-access highway to yield to vehicles traveling on highway. (BDR 43-647)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3:
Senate Bill 77 requires the driver of a vehicle entering or exiting a controlled-access highway to yield to vehicles currently traveling on that highway. The proposed change in the law is section 1, subsection 2. As you read the language they conflict with one another and cause great confusion for drivers.
By deleting subsection 2 and allowing cars already traveling at high speeds to continue at their rate of speed, the responsibility of yielding is on the person accessing the highway. Drivers will know the person approaching a high-speed transit system is to yield to the people already traveling at high speeds. For these reasons I am seeking your support for S.B. 77 to delete subsection 2 of the current NRS 484.322.
Senator Nolan:
What was the motivation, other than an apparent conflict of language between the two sections, that caused you to bring this forward?
Senator Wiener:
There are several locations in southern Nevada, for example the Spaghetti Bowl brings traffic onto the freeway from downtown Las Vegas. There is a crossover of traffic for those who are entering the freeway and those who are exiting. You do not know who has the right-of-way, especially if you are crossing traffic. This would say the person traveling at high speeds, especially on freeways, has the right-of-way and the person approaching must yield.
The law says an 18-wheeler traveling at high speeds has to yield to the person coming onto the freeway. There is great danger in that situation. This would create some consistency within the law. The Nevada Department of Transportation has often put yield signs in those high traffic areas to create protections even though the law is conflicting.
Senator Nolan:
It is a problem in many places. I am inclined to think anyone trying to get on or off the freeway at any given time is really not considering the statutes.
Senator Wiener:
The issue was brought to my attention then I experienced it myself. In traffic school they teach that a car coming into fast traffic has the right-of-way. I would have presumed it to be the other way. I had not yet confronted the situation, so I looked into it. It appears we have two sections back-to-back that conflict with one another.
Senator Nolan:
It would be interesting to see how this will affect the highway patrol citing someone yielding either way.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify on behalf of this bill?
Larry Whitson, Captain, Nevada Highway Patrol:
The lanes Senator Wiener is referring to are called transition lanes. It does not make sense to have a law on the books that requires motorists entering a controlled access highway to have the right-of-way, and those traveling the high-speed highways yield to those trying to enter.
There is a conflict with NRS 484.305. The lane change statute we enforce states you cannot move from a lane of travel unless you can do that safely with signaling. It directly conflicts with the law itself and, in my opinion, it conflicts with another law. I am in support of this bill.
Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, American Automobile Association (AAA) of Nevada:
We are in support for getting rid of this conflicting statute.
Fred Droes, Chief Traffic, Safety, and ITS Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation:
Nevada Department of Transportation also supports this bill for basically the common sense reasons presented here.
Senator Nolan:
I do not know if it has ever been clear to the motoring public, even in traffic safety school, when we talk about yielding and who has the right-of-way onto freeways. Currently you might have a yield sign at an on-ramp telling traffic they must yield to freeway traffic already traveling at high-speeds. I am curious if you feel the need for additional education, or would additional signage be necessary?
Mr. Droes:
I am not sure additional education is needed. Drivers need to learn how to safely merge on and off freeways, that comes with experience behind the wheel. The manual and uniform traffic control devices govern the signs. This language puts the burden on the driver entering or exiting. There is no hand off of the requirement to yield, which is going to reduce confusion.
Chairman Shaffer:
Committee, what is your feeling about S.B. 77?
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 77.
SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 77. I would like to reopen the hearing on S.B. 69. Mr. Jeffrey asked for salvage pull yards to be exempt from this bill. Are there any comments?
Senator Hardy:
I think Mr. Jeffrey brings up a valid point and I think Mr. Sande brought up the same point. I would like to see if we need to exempt them from this bill, or if it can be handled another way before we process S.B. 69. I would like to have that question answered. I think it would unnecessarily involve them. They have another set of statutes and regulations that govern the way they do business. Since they do not do business with the public in any way, I would hate to drag them into this unnecessarily. I think it is important.
Chairman Shaffer:
We will seek the information you have requested Senator Hardy. We will take this up in a work session as soon as we get the information. Is there any other business before us today we need to discuss?
Senator Nolan:
A reminder for committee members who are going to be traveling next week with us to Las Vegas, I believe everyone has received an agenda for the morning of Thursday, February 27, 2003, and where we are to meet. If you have not received that, or if you plan on attending but have not notified Ms. Lyons, please let her know. We need to get the correct security documents processed.
We had a discussion yesterday about these issues with the Attorney General and U.S. Senator Ensign with respect to Yucca Mountain. That is part of what is going to help frame some legislation that will come out later in the Legislative Session. We will garner some information from the trip as well as the presentation given by the Department of Energy next week. If there are members of the public or committee members who will not be attending with us, you can view the meeting here in Carson City. It will be videoconferenced from Las Vegas.
Senator Schneider:
Would we go to Las Vegas on Thursday morning? Would we be returning to Carson City on Friday?
Chairman Shaffer:
We will fly down Wednesday night. Be prepared to go to the test site Thursday morning and spend most of the day there. On Friday, February 28, 2003, the Senate Committee on Transportation will meet at the Grant Sawyer State Office Building at 9:30 a.m. for a meeting that should last approximately 2 hours.
Senator Nolan:
Thursday morning we meet and are bused to the test site. The tour will consist of the Yucca Mountain facility, the low-level waste facility, and the emergency response training area. Friday morning at 9:30 a.m., we will have a meeting at the Grant Sawyer State Office Building.
Chairman Shaffer:
Hearing no other business at this time this meeting is adjourned at 2:03 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: