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 L
ehicle requirements and be issued a license plate by the NV DMV.
My 4th post has the email to send.
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.