Jump to content

SandBlasted

Members
  • Posts

    203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SandBlasted

  1. Yea I have a full set. Give me a call tomorrow at the shop 702-987-0202
  2. Low speed vehicles are already on the streets. They have to stay on roads with a posted speed limit of 35mph or less. Most of these vehicles are NEV (Neighborhood Electric Vehicles) The GEM Car is one such vehicle. LSV and NEV have to meet FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) and for owners of side by sides they are fairly easy to convert. One of the reasons we want to register them is to have access to park service approve dirt roads, like to the river where only street legal vehicles are allowed or be able to drive them to the desert without having to load them up in a trailer. The other is they are fun to drive and for myself easy to get around town here in Boulder City. It is also perfect for other states if you travel, as most have LSV laws on the books. Because of the FMVSS required, like windshields meeting AS-5 glazing standards and seat belts ATV's would not be allowed.
  3. I looked over that bill, it is a bill that according to what i've read in the minutes was drafted by the Nevada wildlife coalition. It is a mandatory registration program.
  4. No. What I'm trying to do is find a way for us to be able to register our side by sides here in Nevada so we may operate them on the streets. This is NOT a mandatory program. We are not reinventing the wheel. Low Speed Vehicles (LSV) are already on the roads here in Nevada and are already being registered. Several manufactures make LSV’s. We are asking that the DMV allow owner modified vehicles to be registered as well. The DMV policy is to allow only vehicles made by a licensed manufacture to be registered as a LSV. No one would be required to register their Side By Side as a LSV. The bill you are referring to is for off-road registration. While I have not read the bill, it is most likely a mandatory program for all off road vehicles operated off road only. If our side by sides were allowed to be registered as LSV's they would be exempt from the off road registration. In AZ, you must register your vehicles. You can register them as a on-road vehicle or an off-road vehicle. ON road registration requires the addition of safety items to be installed in order for registration for on-road use. Basically we are asking for the same here in Nevada.
  5. What most people who buy a side by side out of state don't know, is there is a tax paid stamp that is supposed to be affixed to your ATV or side by side. This came about a few years ago. You can be ticketed for operating a ATV, side by side or dirt bike if you don't have this stamp. The stamp is given to you when you purchase the vehicle in Nevada by the dealer or by the DMV (I think) when you pay the sales tax on a vehicle purchased out of state. So far I have not heard of anyone being ticketed, but sooner or later it will happen.
  6. There is no actual law I can find in AZ that allows registration, they just do it.
  7. The problem is, the DMV does not want to register them. I have been working on this issue for more than 2 years. Registering them as a low speed vehicle was a way of answering the DMV about the vehicles not meeting FMVSS (Fed. Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) Meeting FMVSS as a low speed vehicle is the easiest way to convert a side by side. The feds made is fairly simple so people can convert their vehicles We can take them over to AZ and get them registered, but Nevada has some strict laws on being a resident of Nevada and out of state registration. This is a last resort option personally, as we don't know how LEO will handle it, or if the comity clause of the constitution will end up allowing it in a court of law. Even if it is ruled that we did not break the law for operating the side by side in Nevada, we can still be ticketed for being a resident of Nevada and having out of state registration. The DMV has in my opinion either lied to our reps in Carson City, or really does not know the law. They know the law now and I doubt the EPA ruling will change their minds. The federal laws about certification and emissions greatly differ when an owner modifies his own vehicle, and a vehicle that is produced in commerce. In short, we are trying to do this legally in Nevada. Last ditch effort, I will find a way to legally tie it to AZ and have it licensed there and see what happens when it is operated here in Nevada. There are several possible ways to do this. Through a trust, a LLC, or since my wife does not work in Nevada, I may set her up as a legal resident of AZ. As a protest if that is successful, I plan then to register the rest of my 6 plated vehicles in AZ as well. Currently since there is no state law or federal law that stops my registration and if the DMV still won't allow it, I feel it is my right to protest in any legal way I see fit. Cutting off the funds I pay for registration of my vehicles is how I plan to do it. The only person that can control the DMV is the governor. While I have supported him for years, I did not give him enough cash apparently for access for him to hear my grievance. While we have many that want to register their side by sides here, and while many of you have written emails, we really don’t have the numbers to force a change.
  8. We have cleared the latest hurdle thrown at us who wish to register our Side By Sides; The EPA. While this is good news at the federal level, I have yet to receive a reply back from the DMV and don't expect the DMV to be receptive to this, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed. We sent an email to the EPA a few weeks ago asking about EPA rules on owner modified side by sides. Below is the response. I will be creating a letter to the DMV asking for registration if the DMV again denies registration so if everyone can be prepared to do the email campaign again, I would appreciate it. ----------------- Dear Mr. Froese. It appears we have crossed the latest hurdle the DMV has placed to stop the registration of our owner modified side by sides. I have been in contact with the EPA and have received their response and it is below. We have shown there is nothing in state law or federal law either with the NHTSA or the EPA that prohibits our registration. I now ask again that you please allow the registration of my Rhino, which meets all state and federal laws. Craig Castleberry -----Original Message----- From: Wehrly.Linc@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wehrly.Linc@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:00 PM To: Craig Castleberry Cc: Chen.Emily@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Fw: Hello. I have not received a response - the Yamaha Rhino Mr. Castleberry, You asked whether there were any federal emission standards that you needed to comply with if you converted your 2006 Yamaha Rhino to a Low Speed Vehicle. The answer is no. Yamaha certified the Rhino as a nonroad recreational vehicle to our ATV emission standards. As best as I can tell, the modifications you have made to your vehicle is to reduce the top speed to 25 mph. There have been no changes to the engine or emission control system. Since the EPA is not involved in state registration issues, any other issues you may have in converting your vehicle will be between you and the state. Regards, Linc Wehrly Linc Wehrly Manager, Light-Duty Vehicle Group Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division United States Environmental Protection Agency (734) 214-4286 wehrly.linc@epa.gov
  9. We can't get a straight answer on this. I have looked at AZ law and I have no idea.
  10. I received this today from Mr. Froese. I enclose his reply as well as my intended reply. Since it is the weekend I have to time ponder it over. Recommended any changes you see fit. From: Mark Froese [mailto:MFroese@dmv.nv.gov] Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 3:05 PM Cc: Edgar Roberts; Farrokh Hormazdi; Kristine Nelson Subject: Owner Modified Low Speed Vehicles - SB179 Good Day, The DMV has received several emails from different individuals expressing their concern with the Department on the apparent opposition to registering and titling UTVs (“modified” Rhinos) as Low Speed Vehicles. I would like to respond to these emails. Some of you have indicated that existing laws were enough for you to proceed down the path of getting your off-road vehicles registered and titled. You are correct if you do the following. You have the option of pursuing the steps required by NHTSA (safety) and EPA (emissions) to becoming an approved manufacturer. As a licensed manufacturer you will have the authorization to label the vehicles you manufacture to the Federal safety and emission standards and assign them a conforming Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). Once you have been approved by both of these agencies, you can apply for a “licensed manufacturer” by the Nevada DMV. The Rhino has a gas engine so it must comply with both safety (NHTSA) and emission standards (EPA) for on-road use, even as a LSV. 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 manufacture, and states that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS in effect on that date. The mere act of affixing the label constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS. If a vehicle with a conforming VIN is presented to the Department, and it is properly labeled by a licensed manufacturer that it meets all U.S. safety and emission standards for on-road use, the DMV will title and register that vehicle. We have conveyed this to Mr. Castleberry in previous email correspondence. In addition, our attorney general has advised us that the department should not take on the Federal certification process of these vehicles. The certification of these vehicles is done by the manufacturer of these vehicles. In fact, when a business is established as a manufacturer with NHTSA and EPA, this business (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 manufacture, and states that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS in effect on that date. The Department does not have the expertise in the Federal certification process. Regards Mark Froese, CPM Administrator Research & Development Nevada DMV ---------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Froese. The people that you have replied to have received your arguments for over 2 years and all are fully aware of the DMV position, as well as our opposing arguments. Many have helped with the research. It is with their own rationale that they did not agree and asked for a fair hearing by the DMV on this issue. I know you probably will not agree, however those of us who are seeking this are reasonable people, we are not however lemmings. We have shown the DMV repeatedly where the research at the federal level used to deny our registration was either out dated or misapplied when it came to meeting FMVSS and/or as owner-modifiers. According to Coleman Sachs, Chief Council from the NHTSA, a copy which you were provided and again included in this reply, the owner who modifies his own vehicle automatically becomes a manufacture and by the owner affixing a label to his own the vehicle that it meets FMVSS is certifying as a manufacture that his vehicle meets all FMVSS and as such meets all NHTSA requirements for certification. This should satisfy the attorney general that the DMV is not taking on the federal certification process. The DMV however may wish inspect these vehicles, as it does with others if it desires so. Once again in your response, you failed to address the above issue, reverting back to a licensed for profit manufacture, ignoring the difference of a owner who modifies his own vehicle. To me, this is the same as a prosecutor who would ignore exculpatory evidence. When you provide questionable information to reasonable people and when we see the DMV registering other vehicles which are similar in nature, we as reasonable people may question it. By the DMV not giving correct information and ignoring information contrary to the DMV’s opinion for over 2 years on this issue, you have prolonged getting this resolved, not us. The items below have still not been addressed by the DMV. 1. It was the DMV who suggested we get a new law and when one was written it was fought by the DMV. Why did the DMV tell us to get a new law, and then fight passage of the new law? 2. It is my opinion having sold the DOT approved dirt bike conversion kits and knowing people who received registration that the DMV did register off-road vehicles like dirt bike conversions, at the time when we asked for registration of our vehicles. 3. It has been shown that owners can modify and certify their own vehicles, satisfying all NHTSA requirements with regards to FMVSS and certification. 4. Home built vehicles including trailers must also meet FMVSS and to our knowledge these vehicles are being registered in the state and the DMV seems willing to register these vehicles without requiring formal NHTSA certification. 5. We have also asked how other states have been registering these vehicles. Some states enacted laws as late as 2008. While we understand you don’t have to answer to what others states do, failure to address this only serves to make us optimistic that registration can be done. It is noted that EPA regulations were not used in the past to deny our registration or part of the 5 points used to fight against SB179, we are attempting to find how this affects our vehicles. Electric golf carts do not have gasoline engines and should be exempt from EPA certification. If you remember we have since the beginning asked for registration of these vehicles as well. The DMV has taken the position of not working with us but against us. We will continue to press this issue until you give satisfactory explanation of why our arguments and evidence is not valid or upon evidence from our own research that registration is not possible due to law. We are not the experts in this field, the DMV should be, however we understand that with so many laws, rules and regulation, no one can completely understand it. The other day when I called the NHTSA with a question, a lower level employee with 24 years experience, told me I could not do what I wanted to do. I emailed him the opinion I received from Mr. Sachs and he said “I did not know this” He also stated Coleman Sachs is the attorney who makes the opinions and if he said you can do it, you can. If we would have worked together on this issue from the beginning, we probably would not be where we are today. We stand willing to work together with you regardless of the outcome. Thank you, Craig Castleberry Opinion from Coleman Sachs, NHTSA 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. I hope this adequately addresses all of you questions. Coleman Sachs, Chief Import and Certification Division Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance
  11. No thanks are required. All the help you and others have done is more than enough thanks. You Rock!
  12. I received an email from a person stating ATV's should not be street legal, as they are dangerous. It was apparent from their email they had no idea what we were trying to do. I have decided to write why we should have the ability to register these vehicles. As most of you know, many of us have been involved with a fight to get Side by Sides registered as a Low Speed Vehicles here in Nevada. While this may seem silly to you, why do I want to make my Side by Side slow? Slow can be a temporary thing, after it is registered that is between you and law enforcement. As long as it is operated on the streets no faster than 25MPH on a road with a posted speed limit of 35MPH or less, you should not have a problem. Meeting the requirements of a LSV is the easiest way for owners to convert side by sides and make them street legal. This is why we choose this route. To give an example of access, I live in Boulder City. We have fantastic approved roads here in Boulder City. Most of these roads however are located in the national park service are opened to street legal vehicles only. There are many approved roads in the NPS where people want access. Jeeps, Trucks and other vehicles can access these approved roads, but ATV's and side by sides are not allowed simply because they are not street legal. We have a few roads that are accessible from Boulder City, one will take you to the river and another takes you to a high mountain top with a breathtaking view of the entire lower basin of Lake Mead. Even in wilderness areas like Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area near Henderson, the access road to this wilderness area is for street legal vehicles only. Many of you may have your own area you'd like to ride in but the street legal requirement keeps you out. I'd like to ask everyone for their support in helping get passed side by side as Low Speed Vehicles, and the restoration of the DMV to reinstate registration of dirt bike converted to dual sport on-road Motorcycles. Even if you don't own one we need your help. This is what is on the agenda now. In the future I will always fight for access of other OHV's. We are attempting to again slip an amendment for this in a new transportation bill. We need people to support and email or phone the heads of the transportation committee and their reps to allow registration of these vehicles. I will create an email to send and provide email addresses to those involved in getting this passed here in the near future. I can be reached here, or at extremeoutdoors@cox.net Thank you Craig Castleberry
  13. Thank you everyone for your emails it may be working. I hope everyone will continue to send the emails. Assemblyman Hardy asked me to draft a summary of what we wanted. He is looking for a transportation bill to insert it in. As many of you know, we have been asking for registration for over 2 years now. Nevada DMV stated they do not register off-road vehicles. Even when I insisted they did, gave them examples of it, the DMV denied it. About 8 weeks ago, the DMV decided to toss out the baby with the bath water and I assume because of me telling them they did register off road vehicles, they stopped registering converted dual sport dirt bikes. It was not my intention to involve the bikers, but now the dirt bike folks are pissed off at the DMV. In my summary draft, I included the restoration of dirt bike registrations as well. Copy of summary for proposed legislation. Summary Amendment would allow owner-modified Side By Side vehicles and golf carts to be registered and restore owner-modified dirt bikes, built to FMVSS to again be registered in the State of Nevada. Owner Modified Vehicles must meet FMVSS 571:500 and NRS 484.527 Owners who modify their own vehicles become the manufacture and as such must affix to a prescribed location that the vehicle meets FMVSS in effect at the time of manufacture, and that the vehicle is a Low-Speed Vehicle. Amendment affirms existing Low-Speed Vehicle Laws that modified Side By Sides and Golf Carts must be capable of speeds not less than 20MPH and not greater than 25MPH If registered, a low-speed vehicle may be operated upon a highway where the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour or less. A person shall not operate a low-speed vehicle upon a highway where the posted speed limit is greater than 35 miles per hour, except to cross such a highway at an intersection. Amendment allows the DMV to collect fees for inspection of vehicles as they deem necessary and to issue Vehicle Identification Numbers as the department sees fit. Gasoline powered vehicles would be exempt from emissions testing as are street motorcycles. Amendment would instruct the Department of Motor Vehicles to restore the registration of owner-modified dirt bikes built to FMVSS for on-road motorcycles and allows the DMV to collect fees for inspection of vehicles as they deem necessary and to issue vehicle identification numbers as the department sees fit. Side By Side Utility Vehicle Defined. The term includes a side by side utility terrain vehicle which has been modified to comply with the standards specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, No. 500 at C.F.R. 571:500 1. Designed with a roll cage and a minimum of two seats installed side by side 2. Designed to be driven on a variety of terrains 3. Having at least four wheels in contact with the ground; 4. Having the capability of four-wheel drive Golf cart” defined. The term includes a golf car vehicle which has been modified to comply with the standards specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, No. 500 at C.F.R. 571:500 1. Has no fewer than three wheels in contact with the ground; and 2. Is designed to carry golf equipment and no more than four persons, including the driver. 3. A vehicle which is customarily used on golf courses.
  14. This is not just for the Rhinos but for all side by sides. I just have a Rhino. Once one is registered then all can be registered as long as they can meet the FVMSS for a LSV. There are some stipulations on how we speed control the side by sides. I know how to do the Rhino. Not sure on the others s as I have not done one yet. The rest of the requirements are easy.
  15. I think the DMV just does not want them on the road.
  16. 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 eroberts@dmv.nv.gov Deputy Directors email is fhormazdi@dmv.nv.gov Assemblyman katkinson@asm.state.nv.us Senator mschneider@sen.state.nv.us
  17. I need everyones 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 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'm now working with some other reaps on this issue. 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 eroberts@dmv.nv.gov Deputy Directors email is fhormazdi@dmv.nv.gov Ref: Email to the director seeking a fair hearing Email: to Mark Froese about how we were treated and documentation of errors and falsehoods. Email asking for a fair hearing on this issue----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Email From Coleman Sachs NHTSA 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 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 “not readily modified by the owner” 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 “governed down” 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 can’t speed control that type of vehicle to meet LSV regulations. Since weights for LSV’s are now up to 3,500 pounds at the federal level, people may want to try and register regular passenger cars as LSV’s. 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 can’t 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 I’m trying to do, but that does not give you the right to try and stop something simply because you don’t like it. Like I was told by you, if you don’t like it get a new law. Even your lower level employees don’t know what’s 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 don’t 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 can’t be more than the kit cars or home built vehicles that the DMV registers which makes me wonder again, why I’m 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, “No matter what you do to it, we will not register it.” 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 don’t know if he gave you a copy. 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 don’t 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
  18. I received this from M. Forese at the DMV today. 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. Mark Froese, CPM Administrator Research & Development NV DMV My Reply Thank you for your response Mr. Froese. See below for current clarification from the Coleman Sachs, where the buck stops at the NHTSA. I did not send this to you, as I gave it to Senator Hardy. Maybe you did not receive it. The DMV may consider this matter closed, however I do not. Like so many other things you have said that were in error, I did get that ruling and like all the rest you’ve sent I researched it out for myself. I told you I talked VIA phone to a compliance officer at the NHTSA and discussed how I was going to do the Rhino. While a simple governor or a “block of wood under the gas pedal” would not suffice, we have a electronic speed controller that “can’t be readily modified by the owner” which is the standard. If you have been working with me instead of against me, maybe you would of remembered that. Rest assured before I do become a manufacture I will get the speed controller clarified again just like everything else I’ve done. I already have a call into the EPA to see if there is any emissions standards for LSV’s. Since Nevada does not require emissions testing for motorcycle engines and the Rhino engine is basically the same thing, can I assume Nevada will not require a smog test for our LSV’s? Or is this something you are going to spring on me later? The compliance officer stated the way I was doing the speed control would be legal. The Rhino is the only side by side, designed to run faster than 25MPH that can and is controlled by a electronic vehicle speed limiter (Not a RPM Limiter) where the rest of the side by sides designed to go faster than 25 MHP (to my best knowledge) can’t be controlled the same way as the Rhino. It was noted by the compliance officer, that the GEM car is capable of speeds faster than 25mph if the speed controller is modified or even tires, so in fact the GEM car is itself being “governed down” and kits are sold on the web for such modifications. Depending on what kit is sold, speeds are advertised for a modified GEM car of over 45MPH. Previous so called rulings you’ve sent me were also found to be in error. Like a owner modifier is automatically considered the manufacture from the NHTSA. Like under federal law you can convert a off-road vehicle into an on-road vehicle, can’t be a LSV with a truck bed, or you don’t register off–road vehicles. I can’t figure out if you’re really incompetent or just trying to screw this up, but I’m about ready to make a formal complaint. Maybe you’re not used to having someone disagree with you, I don’t know what the problem is but I can tell you, you don’t work well with others. I have just a high school education yet I seem to be able to perform better research than you on the subject at hand. You told me you don’t register off-road vehicles which is not true and I’m pretty sure you know it. If not you need to get into the loop. It seems late last year you stopped the practice, however many DMV employees did not get that memo. I have been doing research on the registered off road vehicles which I have stated for several years that the DMV does. I talked to an DMV inspector, several owners, and industry manufactures of dual sport kits and it is noted that registration became difficult late last year. I assume this was suddenly stopped because of my insistence that the DMV does register off road vehicles. One owner had his Yamaha WR450 which carries the same “not for on road use” warnings, registered by the state in August 2008. When I talked to Baja Designs, a manufacture of DOT dual sport kits for off road motorcycles they said they started hearing through their customers that Nevada was not registering them “around the 1st of the year, 2008-2009.” The DMV inspectors time line thought it was late 2008 Nevada put a stop to the practice. It is also noted that when I called the other day to the Las Vegas DMV, depending on who you talked to, some said it was legal. At one time it was so prevalent and easy to register these off road vehicles, Californians were registering them in Nevada and then taking them back to other more restrictive states like California, and since it was registered in Nevada, California would issue a registration. Since I have been asking for registration for a couple of years now, it is noted that everything you told me from we don’t register off road vehicles to federal law does not allow conversion has been false and in fact WAS legal from the standpoint of off road modification and registration of converted dirt bikes. Since our Rhino met FMVSS and you were registering off road vehicles, my request should have been granted. If the DMV is now going to stop registration of Dual Sport MC conversions, DMV officials should inform the policy to all of its employees and update and make it clear on its website what that policy is. Residents who view the DMV web site, talk to DMV employees and other residents who have successfully registered their own, these residents may purchase these expensive kits having received incorrect information from the DMV itself, wasting their hard earned money in the process. This is in fact what happened to myself. When I gave DMV employees the info what I was going to do with the Rhino, showed them the law about Low Speed Vehicles, I was informed I could do it. The DMV is a lot like the IRS, talk to 3 different people, get 3 different answers. It will be my intention if I become a manufacture, to re-manufacture so owners can register golf carts, certain Side by Sides and dual sport motorcycles. If you have objections to this I insist on having all of your objections backed in law or regulation before I begin. Coleman Sachs would be a good place for correct information at the federal level. I also wondering why you have not sent the research information you said you were going to send? Did you forget? I also now want any legal opinions from the DMV lawyers or state lawyers on this liability issue. I also want to know how the state liability differs from what I’m trying to do and with kit and home built vehicles. I ask that the DMV start working like the Governors banner that reads "The people of the state of Nevada deserve a government that works for them, not against them." Never once have I felt you have worked with me. I know there is a legal way for you to register my Rhino as a LSV without me becoming a manufacture. Please work for me, not against me. I would suggest maybe registration as a home built. 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 don’t 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. Thank you, Craig Castleberry
  19. I did talk to a lawyer on this and he said it was legal under the comity clause of the constitution. I asked can you give me an example? Say if Nevada's legal age driving age is 17 and in AZ it is 16. Nevada can't ticket a 16 year old for driving in the state of Nevada. Take that for what it is worth. Cops don't know screwy things like the comity clause. Every cop I have ever show Nevada's law and the federal law on LSV's said it looked like it was legal to them as well as the regular DMV employees. Our own police chief from BC is on record saying there is nothing he can do about it. Having said that I would have politely told the cop I will remove it from the street and asked him for the ticket and let a judge decide. As long as residency requirements are met, who knows. I have had many 3rd party’s say even regular ATV's (4x4s) with plates in AZ have been given a pass from the CA highway patrol. They looked at the equipment, registration and insurance and said have a nice day.
  20. As long as it is legally tied to Utah and leaves the state every 60 days, I don't see why not. Now the cops may say different, but I know there are ways to get it done. The key is legally tied and Nevada laws on registration. Problem with Utah, it MAY be a restrictive plate. AZ changed some of its laws this year and I don't know what those implications are if any. I have been thinking of getting it registered in AZ, having it titled to a relative who lives in that state, and I'm "just borrowing it" or I'm the lein holder and both of us are the registered owner. Some other factors I've thought of. If you have a wife that does not work, have her legal address in Utah or AZ and driver license from one of those states. A LLC in another state and it registered to the LLC. Same with a trust. I have a friend for years that has every vehicle he owns as well as most of his children’s vehicles registered in OR. They have property in OR, and she is a legal resident of OR. The local cops who know everyone lives here in Boulder ticketed them a few times, but it was thrown out every time. Be sure what tax obligations you may incur with these options. Since I have not been given a fair hearing on this issue and there is no one who will make sure I get a fair hearing, I reserve the right to protest in any legal way I see fit. If it is not giving Nevada it's fair share of tax revenue from my registration and it can be legally done, then so be it.
  21. The easiest way is to make them street legal is to make them a LSV (low speed vehicle) For the Rhino it requires a new CDI, with a top speed of 25mph. A Lexan windshield (Meets AS-5 glazing standards) Type 1 or 2 seat belt assemblies, then the normal stuff like horn, turn signals etc. For LSV's the normal FMVSS are pretty simple to meet, with greatly reduced standards over a normal passenger vehicle. Other side by sides do not use the MPH vehicle speed limiter like the Rhino, only a RPM limiter so we have not investigated how we can legally limit the speeds. The feds say the way we are doing it for the Rhino is legal, as it would require the owner to change out the CDI for higher speeds, but for side by sides like the Ranger or RZR we would have to see how we can modify it so it can't be changed super easy. A block of wood under the gas pedal for example or a simple governor will not suffice. It is noted however, it is not illegal under federal law for an owner to modify his vehicle. You can cut the seat belts out of your car, disable every safety device in it, and it is not against FEDERAL LAW. However if your pulled over by a LEO that is a different story. As long as it leaves our state of the art manufacturing facility in full compliance, you can put back in the old CDI, just don't get busted doing over 25 MPH We will be looking at the laws and seeing if we can manufacture these vehicles to be regular passenger vehicles as well. I'm sure these will require more DOT items installed, like windshield wipers DOT Tires, emmission standards etc.
  22. I talked with Senator Hardy last week and the lawyers from the DMV will not budge on the liability issue for the state on the registration issue. I countered every issue the DMV brought up but was not able to overcome this issue. Yes people, the litigators rule the world. Rest assured fellow citizens; your freedom is alive and well in Nevada as long as there is no chance the state can be sued. The DMV states it will register side by sides and golf carts, if they are done by a manufacture. This requires a new MSO on the vehicles with modifications to meet FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) This transfers liability from the state to the manufacture. (I can't find any info if the state has ever been sued) We (Extreme Outdoors) are looking into becoming a manufacture. We do know there is a less burden at the federal level for vehicle manufactures who produce in small numbers, but the states requires bonds and a whole bunch of hoops to jump through. We are proceeding on this course at this time. The federal government views the owner of a owner modified vehicle, as the manufacture. I tried to get the law changed that would reflect that a owner of a modified vehicle is the manufacture and the owner as a manufacture is liable to meet FMVSS. It fell to deaf ears at the DMV. We don't trust the DMV, as it was they who told us to get a law passed, then fought it every step of the way. It was the DMV who has stated you can't do it as federal laws do not allow it, and that was false. We are worried that after we spend the money to become a manufacture the DMV will still deny our registrations. I really don't know how hard Senator Hardy pushed this issue, but he is a friend to the off-roader in this state, one of the few. If you are so inclined, give him a call letting him know you appreciate his efforts.
  23. The DMV just keeps standing in the way giving false information, saying we could lose our highway funds etc. In a nutshell, I went back to the NHTSA and got all new written info which has proved the DMV wrong.... Again. One of the DMV's main sticking part is the manufacture part. I got the NHTSA to put in writing they regard a owner modifier as the manufacture, requiring no formal certification from the feds. I asked Sen. Hardy if we can place in the bill that an owner modified vehicle is the manufacture and all liability resides on the owner manufacture. He has submitted it to the legal department to see if this will fly.
  24. Thank you! Like they say, even a blind chicken gets a lil corn once-in-awhile Sometimes we get lucky
×
×
  • Create New...