Nevada law for LSV SB179 - Yamaha Rhino Forums - Yamaha UTV Forum
Western Region The Western Region includes the following States:

Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 18 (permalink) Old 04-28-2009, 11:22 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 71
Nevada law for LSV SB179

I received a email I thought I should pass on to the public(or at least Nevadans)

The email is in regards to SB179 which is a State Bill that would allow Nevadans to register a SXS with the NV DMV and have a license plate on there SXS.

Craig Castleberry the owner of Extreme Outdoors in Boulder City has done all the foot work on trying to get this bill passed. If passed, we could equip our SXS's to fit Low Speed vehicle requirements and be issued a license plate by the NV DMV.

My 4th post has the email to send.



READ THIS



I need everyone’s help who is interested in this issue to contact the director and deputy director. Get as many involved as possible. Emails are provided below.



I was informed today the SB179 is dead. I have been researching about becoming a manufacture and it is very burdensome. As most of you know, we were not treated fairly by the DMV. I contacted some other state legislators, and one had the Legal Council (LCB call me) I have never had the opportunity to talk to them before today. LCB is the legal counsel for the legislators. They have no power to make anyone do anything, they are there to give legal opinion to our reps.



Mr. Nichols and Mr. Young called me separately from the LCB. We discussed what can be done, I told them the DMV tactics and what has transpired. It was both of their legal opinion based upon my information that there is no additional legal liability on the state if these vehicles are registered by the state.



I have asked the director for a full and impartial hearing on this matter. (Email Enclosed) I have asked that any legal opinions on the liability issue be made available to us on this matter, as I do not think a real one exists. I think as a group it is time we make our voices heard.



Please read both the enclosed emails to the director so you may get a good grasp of the situation. Please forward this email to friends who are interested in this so we may try to get a good group asking for a fair hearing.



If we need a new law, it is possible in insert it into an existing bill that is still active. I still do not believe we need a new law. We just need the DMV to be honest.



I ask that you contact the director and deputy director or the DMV and ask that we receive a fair hearing on this matter.



Directors email is [email protected]

Deputy Directors email is [email protected]



Ref: Email to the director seeking a fair hearing

Email: to Mark Froese about how we were treated and documentation of errors and falsehoods.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Director Roberts.

Re: Owner Modified Low Speed Vehicle Registration

Dear Director Roberts,

My previous email dated 04/27/09 which documents how I have been treated in trying to get my Rhino registered as a low-speed vehicle, I request information and a new, impartial hearing in this matter where all the information will be considered.

I have been told there is a liability issue for the state if an owner modified LSV is licensed in the state. I have never been able to present my case to those who would decide if there is indeed a liability for the state. Since I have received proven false, not applicable, no longer valid and in some cases blatant false information used to deny my registration, I feel this is an appropriate request.

I was informed by the DMV to seek a new law and when I did under SB179 introduced by Senator W. Hardy, the DMV then fought against this legislation as well, using most of the same previously proven false information and regulation.

I would also like to know persons involved who drafted the opinion of liability, what if any, legal opinions, laws, regulations or interpretations that were used to draft this opinion and how liability differs in my case based upon other vehicles being registered by the state, including off-road vehicles like owner modified dirt bikes, kit cars and home built vehicles, especially trikes, home built trailers etc all of which are subject to FMVSS which are manufactured or converted by the owners. I would like to be contacted by council who made this determination as I feel since I was not given the correct information about this issue, council may have not received correct information as well.

I have asked many times from DMV officials how my registration in this matter differs from other vehicles the DMV registers and why the state liability would differ. I have never received a valid reply to this issue when I have rebuilt my Rhino to be safer than the original Rhino built by Yamaha. In fact Yamaha is now incorporating the same safety designs in its 2009 agreement with the CPSC we as owners and modifiers in the business have been doing for years.

When I requested my Rhino to be registered, it fully met FMVSS 571:500 as described in federal law and Nevada Revised Statutes. At the time, I can prove Nevada was registering off-road vehicles which carried the same warning labels as my Rhino before it was converted to meet the standards. According to Chief Council from the NHTSA office of imports and vehicle safety compliance, (quoted below) when I modified my Rhino to meet FMVSS I became the manufacture.

I would like to identify with DMV or state council if necessary, how we can identify where as a owner – manufacture, liability would rest on me, based upon federal law where it is viewed that I am currently the manufacture or a new state law that puts liability on me as an owner modifier.

Dear Mr. Castleberry,

Thank you for referring these questions to us. As discussed in the excerpt from the Federal Register document that you provided, we do take the position that a person who converts an off-road vehicle into an on-road vehicle takes on the responsibility of a motor vehicle manufacturer, and, as such, must certify the resulting motor vehicle as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). We do not approve or certify any motor vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS. That is instead the responsibility of the vehicle's manufacturer. A manufacturer certifies a vehicle by permanently affixing to the vehicle, in a prescribed location, a label that, among other things, identifies the manufacturer and the vehicle's date of manufacturer, and states that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS in effect on that date. In the scenario you describe, the person who converts a golf car into an LSV would be responsible for affixing such a certification label to the vehicle. That person would not need to submit any information concerning the vehicle to NHTSA. Instead, the mere act of affixing the label constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS. You should understand that a manufacturer must exercise reasonable care in certifying a vehicle to all applicable FMVSS. If NHTSA should learn that a vehicle certified to our standards in fact does not comply with one or more of those standards, we could ask the manufacturer to demonstrate how it exercised reasonable care in certifying the vehicle. If the manufacturer fails to establish that it in fact exercised reasonable care, it could be subject to civil penalties. You should understand that these provisions are primarily applied to commercial entities that manufacture motor vehicles for resale, and not to consumers who manufacture a motor vehicle for their own use.

Coleman Sachs, Chief
Import and Certification Division
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Craig Castleberry

Last edited by Python; 04-28-2009 at 11:28 AM.
Python is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 18 (permalink) Old 04-28-2009, 11:24 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 71
2nd email documenting all the bad info--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mr. Castleberry,



With the September 26, 2008 ruling from NHTSA that was sent to you that will not allow a vehicle to be governed down to create a LSV, what you are wanting to do would not meet federal standards. Therefore, the DMV stands by the decision that you will need to become a manufacturer and registered as a manufacturer with NHTSA and EPA. Your status with NHTSA and EPA would have to be as a manufacturer for on road vehicles. This way you can label your vehicles as a manufacturer and assume the liability. Becoming a rebuilder would not allow you to re-manufacture a vehicle. Once you have become a manufacture with NHTSA and EPA you can apply with the Department as the same type of manufacturer you are approved as via NHTSA/EPA. The DMV considers this matter closed.



Re: Low-Speed Vehicles



Thank you for your response Mr. Froese



I told you in a email back when you sent this interpretation to me that I discussed how were are limiting the speed of the Rhino with the NHTSA. I would have not continued had my speed controller not been legal. The compliance officer stated the way I was doing the speed control would be legal. My speed controller according to the NHTSA is ďnot readily modified by the ownerĒ which is the standard. We discussed that the controller could be changed out achieving faster speeds. It was then noted by the compliance officer, that the GEM car is capable of speeds faster than 25mph if the speed controller is modified or the electric motor replaced with a higher HP motor. The GEM car is itself being ďgoverned downĒ and kits are sold on the web for such modifications. Depending on what kit is purchased, speeds are advertised for a modified GEM car of over 40MPH. If indeed the owner changed out the speed controller to obtain faster speeds after the vehicle was certified as meeting FMVSS, it would not be against federal law but a matter for the state and local law enforcement as a low speed vehicle is not allowed to operate on the road faster than 25MPH. This is the same type of scenario you stated to me that the four wheel motorcycles on the streets as have been done with trike like kits, is a matter for law enforcement.



The interpretation also does not apply to me for 2 reasons. The vehicle in question in the interpretation you provided was never designed to be a LSV, but a regular passenger car meeting other FVMSS. You canít speed control that type of vehicle to meet LSV regulations. Since weights for LSVís are now up to 3,500 pounds at the federal level, people may want to try and register regular passenger cars as LSVís. The 2nd reason is since the Rhino was not built to FMVSS, when we remanufactured it to meet FMVSS it was re-designed as a LSV meeting 571:500.



You told me that since the Rhino had a cargo truck bed, it could not be a LSV. You have told me federal law does not allow conversions from off-road to on-road. You have told me my speed controller will not work. You told me and Senator Hardy, that the DMV does not register off-Road vehicles, and had the audacity to again tell me the DMV did not register off-road dirt bikes when I explained to you I was in the business of selling the kits and our customers were getting them registered. You stated that Nevada can lose its highway funds of there were allowed to be registered. All of the above is false. Nevada canít lose its highway funds if you register a vehicle meeting FMVSS standards.



While I do admit there is old interpretation that support some of your claims, common sense ruled out many automatically and made seeking further information by me, necessary. The first one that led me to believe the information you were providing was incorrect was some models of the GEM-car had a cargo bed like a truck. Based on this, how could this 1995 interpretation you provided still be valid?



Back to the dirt bike issue, I have talked to one person that had his Yamaha WR450 registered as late as August 2008. I have many other examples of this for previous dates and even the manufactures of the kits stated they had no problem in Nevada until around the 1st of the year when customers were calling them stating Nevada was no longer registering them. I assume this was in response to my continued assertion that you continued to ignore over the past few years that you do register owner modified dirt bikes.



You may not like what Iím trying to do, but that does not give you the right to try and stop something simply because you donít like it. Like I was told by you, if you donít like it get a new law. Even your lower level employees donít know whatís going on at the DMV. I called last week and asked the registration department if I can still convert a dirt bike to a dual sport bike and the rep told me yes and even where to go to get the DMV list of equipment needed. She must not have received the Memo where you stopped registering converted dirk bikes. At one time, registering owner modified dirt bikes was so easy in Nevada, California residents were registering them in Nevada and after receiving title, re-registering them in California. If in doubt, search the forums like thumper talk where people discuss it.



While you have used old legal interpretations, I went to the source for current legal interpretations for the NHTSA. His name is Coleman Sachs and he is the Chief Legal Counsel for Vehicle Safety. There has been such bad will coming from you and others at the DMV, I just donít trust anything you say. I doubt the validity of this so called liability issue and even if there is one and if there is a liability issue for the state, it still canít be more than the kit cars or home built vehicles that the DMV registers which makes me wonder again, why Iím being singled out and denied registration. If the tables were turned and I continued to give poorly research opinion, continued to pass on incorrect information and in some cases making false statements on a issue, at some point my credibility would be in question. Since you have done all of the above to me in this case, please excuse me if I doubt your credibility.



You told me to get a new law and when I did you, the DMV fought that too and now you want me to become a manufacture and I wonder if you will end up fighting that as well. If you would of worked with me instead of working against me, looked for laws and regulation that would have given a correct picture of what was allow and not allowed, like I did, we could of got this handled a long time ago.



The Governors banner by his door reads "The people of the state of Nevada deserve a government that works for them, not against them." I deserved no less than this from you, but what I received is red tape, incorrect information and total falsehoods designed to hinder my efforts. Maybe I should of heeded what I was in for when it was told to me, ďNo matter what you do to it, we will not register it.Ē In my wildest dreams would I ever think how deceptive you and others at the DMV would be on this issue as I tend to view people as reasonable and just.



It is in my opinion you should not be in the position you are in. When it came to the question of the DMV registering off-road motorcycles, your continued denial that the DMV did not register them is a complete falsehood. Top that off with all the federal regulations using old interpretations that were no longer valid tends to support my conclusion. Not once have you even acknowledged that my research was correct, instead choosing to continue to provide incorrect regulation to Senator Hardy and myself when it was proved your research was invalid. At the hearing on SB179 the same old arguments were presented when you were previously shown most were incorrect. Only the liability issue was still in question. On this bases I can only conclude you have not been honest in this matter.



Because of your continued assertion of what I was doing was not legal, I asked Mr. Sachs for clarification and received his reply on 04/22/09. I asked in the context of an owner modified vehicle. As you can plainly see in his reply, an owner modified off-road vehicle is possible and as such the owner is the manufacture. This would put my registration request in line with home built units the DMV registers and previously registered dirt bikes. I gave this to Senator Hardy a few weeks ago. I donít know if he gave you a copy.
Python is offline  
post #3 of 18 (permalink) Old 04-28-2009, 11:24 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 71
Dear Mr. Castleberry,



Thank you for referring these questions to us. As discussed in the excerpt from the Federal Register document that you provided, we do take the position that a person who converts an off-road vehicle into an on-road vehicle takes on the responsibility of a motor vehicle manufacturer, and, as such, must certify the resulting motor vehicle as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). We do not approve or certify any motor vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS. That is instead the responsibility of the vehicle's manufacturer. A manufacturer certifies a vehicle by permanently affixing to the vehicle, in a prescribed location, a label that, among other things, identifies the manufacturer and the vehicle's date of manufacturer, and states that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS in effect on that date. In the scenario you describe, the person who converts a golf car into an LSV would be responsible for affixing such a certification label to the vehicle. That person would not need to submit any information concerning the vehicle to NHTSA. Instead, the mere act of affixing the label constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS. You should understand that a manufacturer must exercise reasonable care in certifying a vehicle to all applicable FMVSS. If NHTSA should learn that a vehicle certified to our standards in fact does not comply with one or more of those standards, we could ask the manufacturer to demonstrate how it exercised reasonable care in certifying the vehicle. If the manufacturer fails to establish that it in fact exercised reasonable care, it could be subject to civil penalties. You should understand that these provisions are primarily applied to commercial entities that manufacture motor vehicles for resale, and not to consumers who manufacture a motor vehicle for their own use.

Coleman Sachs, Chief
Import and Certification Division
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

Mr. Froese, if you donít understand what Mr. Sachs wrote here, or what I have written, by all means, please call and I will be more than happy to explain it to you.



Craig Castleberry
Python is offline  
 
post #4 of 18 (permalink) Old 04-28-2009, 11:25 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 71
Email this
email draft to send to the DMV and the heads of the transportation committee. -emails are listed below

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Director Roberts:

Re: Owner Modified Low Speed Vehicles - SB179

I as well as many others who are interested in getting owner modified side by sides as well as golf carts registered in the state as low speed vehicles have been monitoring the emails and the state law that would have allowed the registration of these vehicles for over 2 years now.

Through Craig Castleberry who has done most of the research on this issue, until now, has spoken for me. I feel it is time for my voice to be heard on this issue.

Our owner modified vehicles, when rebuilt to meet FMVSS should be registered as the DMV has done with other vehicles, including dirt bikes, kit cars and home built units. We have monitored this subject with interest and have been shocked by the continued use of poor research by the DMV designed to hinder our efforts.

I feel we have never needed a new law however when told to seek a new law by the DMV, we did, only to find the DMV fighting against the very law it told us to get and it was fought against by the DMV using incorrect information given to our elected officials. We also feel based upon what other states have done and recent conversations with LCB that no real liability exists on the state.

Due to some officials at the DMV using incorrect legal interpretation and the DMV not applying policies fairly, the DMV has denied our registrations. I ask for a complete and fair hearing on this issue.

name
address
phone number


cc. Assemblyman Kelvin Atkinson
cc. Senator Michael Schneider

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since SB179 is officially dead I would also send a copy to the heads of the transportation committee cc above which we may need if we are to insert this law into a new bill.

email to:

Directors email is [email protected]
Deputy Directors email is [email protected]
Assemblyman [email protected]
Senator [email protected]
Python is offline  
post #5 of 18 (permalink) Old 04-28-2009, 12:42 PM
RhinoTalk.net Site Sponsor
 
Mush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hendertucky NV
Posts: 3,207
Please everyone copy and paste this last post by python and email it to the peeps below, so nevada can be street legal like utah and az.

2007 3 seater razor eater
H-Town Performance for all your custom cage/bumper applications 702-564-7306
Mr. RPM BBK
Rigid E-Series
H-Town cage & bumper
Mush is offline  
post #6 of 18 (permalink) Old 04-28-2009, 01:54 PM
RhinoTalk.net Site Sponsor
 
Bryan M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: ummmmmm Im not sure..fuck, I think were lost!
Posts: 1,377
Your message "Owner Modified Low Speed Vehi..." has been sent!


Did mine just now to all of the email addresses provided.....

If you live in Vegas and need a General Contractor...call Manning Construction @ 497-5127
Bryan M is offline  
post #7 of 18 (permalink) Old 04-28-2009, 03:15 PM
Wide F'n Open
 
DuneRocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: las vegas
Posts: 239
Done................
DuneRocket is offline  
post #8 of 18 (permalink) Old 04-28-2009, 03:19 PM
RhinoTalk.net Site Sponsor
 
Mush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hendertucky NV
Posts: 3,207
wow come on ninjas copy paste and e-mail this thing it will take you 5 minutes.

2007 3 seater razor eater
H-Town Performance for all your custom cage/bumper applications 702-564-7306
Mr. RPM BBK
Rigid E-Series
H-Town cage & bumper
Mush is offline  
post #9 of 18 (permalink) Old 04-28-2009, 03:46 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 71
Here is another link to some info regarding LSV on Extreme Outdoors website.

UTV's As LSV's - Low Speed Vehicles
Python is offline  
post #10 of 18 (permalink) Old 04-29-2009, 11:57 AM
Founding Ninja
 
dentedmetal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: henderson , NV
Posts: 227
will do

i hate when this happens


http://dentedmetal.com/
dentedmetal is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Yamaha Rhino Forums - Yamaha UTV Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2 Day UTV Ride, Nor-Cal/Nevada Paulywood Western Region 4 04-17-2009 11:18 AM
Las Vegas nevada to Beaver utah jlineracing20 Western Region 16 10-10-2008 12:39 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58