Side By Sides on the street

[SandBlasted]

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

Edited April 28, 2009 by SandBlasted

[White Rhino]

Craig

do you have a draft e-mail of what exactly you would like us to say?

You seem to have the best knowledge and sometimes even a draft e-mail so we can copy paste?

What do you think? I do think the real deal is he has said no, and he doesnt want to admit that he was wrong? However as a public servant that is NOT what you are supposed to do

[SandBlasted]

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

Edited April 28, 2009 by SandBlasted

[SandBlasted]

Craig

do you have a draft e-mail of what exactly you would like us to say?

You seem to have the best knowledge and sometimes even a draft e-mail so we can copy paste?

What do you think? I do think the real deal is he has said no, and he doesnt want to admit that he was wrong? However as a public servant that is NOT what you are supposed to do

I think the DMV just does not want them on the road.

[mush]

emails sent!, everybody please take the 5 minutes to do the same

Edited April 28, 2009 by mush

[Just Mike]

Ok, sent mine emails off. So how does AZ. Get to register anything and everything?

[White Rhino]

done

Thanks Craig

we will see

EVERYBODY, PLEASE even if you don't have a Rhino, this is unfair practices by the DMV, and we should all rally to get this to a reasonable law, in our favor!

copy paste takes 2 minutes tops

[rushjunkie]

Ok, sent mine emails off. So how does AZ. Get to register anything and everything?

I think the short easy answer is: $

[Just Mike]

I think the short easy answer is: $

If money is the issue they should just add some stupid fee to the registration and they would be making a killing. This stupid azz state won't even let you title any offroad vehicles.

[SandBlasted]

done

Thanks Craig

we will see

EVERYBODY, PLEASE even if you don't have a Rhino, this is unfair practices by the DMV, and we should all rally to get this to a reasonable law, in our favor!

copy paste takes 2 minutes tops

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.

[Bryan M]

Email sent..... Craig, again, thanks for your efforts on this!

[mush]

just sent 2 more copies from my wife and son, also one of our members python posted it up on our site rhino talk.net, and we are trying to get more e-mails sent

[SandBlasted]

just sent 2 more copies from my wife and son, also one of our members python posted it up on our site rhino talk.net, and we are trying to get more e-mails sent

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.

Edited April 30, 2009 by SandBlasted

[SandBlasted]

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

[SandBlasted]

Ok, sent mine emails off. So how does AZ. Get to register anything and everything?

We can't get a straight answer on this. I have looked at AZ law and I have no idea.