Nevada Registraton Of Side X Sides And Golf Carts

[SandBlasted]

After discussing this issue of registering Side x Sides as low speed vehicles with Senator Warren Hardy today, he will be drafting a new law for the upcoming 09 session.

While I'm still discussing the fact with the DMV :clown: that they are not applying DMV rules equally, Senator Hardy said the DMV does not want to budge on this issue and I'm probably still beating my head against the wall Thank god it's a hard head.

While I have had a few discussions with attorneys on this matter and I have been told I have a legitimate case for judicial review, at this point I have not found one to actually take the case.

Since we have no advocate in the State of Nevada to help citizens with bully agencies, it looks like I'm out of options at this time.

Senator Hardy has the LCB researching to see what other states are doing so he can draft new law. We look for something to happen with this come November.

I have asked for a law that will allow registration of both Side X Sides and Modified Golf Carts as low speed vehicles and for a law that will allow registration of Side X Sides as motorcycles.

I asked Senator Hardy if now was the time to have people interested in this issue to call their state reps and he said no, but we will need them when a bill is drafted.

I urge those of you who are interested in this issue, to please send an email to lsv@xoatv.com We will use email and DDR this to pass on news and to release all you dogs of war when the push to get something done comes.

Here is some of the correspondence sent in the past few day between the director’s office and myself. You can get an idea where these peoples mindset is. If you put them all into a juicer, you could not get 1oz of common sense out of the whole bunch.

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

Dear Director Lewis,

On 6/10/08 We sent you a letter asking for registration of our Rhino as a Low Speed Vehicle. We never received a reply from you. We offered to present our Rhino for inspection at any DMV location you chose. We have tried to be completely cooperative in this matter with the DMV. We can’t get a fair hearing.

If you remember our Rhino completely meets NRS 484.527 and federal law 571.500 as it pertains to Low Speed Vehicles. It has every safety feature the DMV has asked for by law.

A meeting with Senator Warren Hardy and DMV officials resulted in the DMV saying it will register our Rhino if we could get a manufactures disclaimer. Yamaha Refused, stating we would need to get it inspected as they have no idea the equipment added to our Rhino.

Yamaha stated that Nevada has an inspection process with the RD-64 form. DMV officials stated that basically the RD-64 inspection form is for everyone else but us. The RD-64 form coveres low speed vehicles, so why is it not acceptable for registration by the DMV?

I talked to the DMV about registering kit cars and home made vehicles and all they needed is to have the RD-64 Inspection form. I asked about a disclaimer from the manufacture and I was told the DMV did not need one. I now ask why are we being singled out for this disclaimer?

The Nevada DMV is not applying rules equally or fairly and we are being singled out for some unknown reason and not allowed registration.

I can’t get anyone at the DMV to give me a reason why if we meet the federal safety standards and Nevada law, why the DMV will not register it.

I hope this letter will not be ignored as the last one was.

Thank you.

Craig Castleberry

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

Dear Mr. Castleberry,

I am writing on behalf of Director Lewis in regards to your e-mail dated August 26, 2008 pertaining to registering a Yamaha Rhino as a low speed vehicle.

On June 17, 2008 a meeting was held with Senator Hardy, Assemblyman Hardy and representatives of the Department of Motor Vehicles to discuss your request. During that meeting both legislators were made aware that the Yamaha Rhino was designed and intended for off road use only. This was evidenced by the information contained in the owner manual, labels and decals attached to the Rhino and literature about the product. In fact the owner’s manual under the WARNING section specifically states Avoid paved surfaces. and This vehicle is designed for off-road use only. Further, information about pending litigation due to “roll over” accidents involving the Rhino was also discussed.

At the conclusion of the meeting it was the consensus of all involved that it was the responsibility of the manufacturer to take the necessary steps to have the vehicle reclassified for on road use before the DMV would proceed. Something Yamaha is not willing to do as evidenced in your e-mail.

The position of the Department of Motor Vehicles based on research and information we’ve collected, has not changed and we are unable to grant your request to register or title this type of vehicle.

Respectfully,

Clay Thomas, Deputy Director

Department of Motor Vehicles

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

Dear Mr. Thomas.

The arguments you have presented are in fact discriminatory and not applied equally by the DMV.

The Rhino as sold from the factory is an off-road vehicle. It did not have the necessary equipment for on road use. It now has been rebuilt as a low speed vehicle and meets the federal safety standards. Federal law allows for the conversions of existing vehicles to low speed vehicles like golf carts. Low speed vehicles do not carry the same requirements and safety standards as standard passenger vehicles.

Since you register other off-road vehicles like dirt bike motorcycles that have been converted to dual sport use, then we are still being treated unfairly. As you well know, dirt bike motorcycles carry the same warning labels from the factory. Once rebuilt these off-road vehicles meet the standards and they are registered by the by the DMV. You do not require any other home built vehicle or kit car to have a manufactures disclaimer as well. Why are we being singled out for a disclaimer?

The DMV also allows permitted golf carts in designated golf cart communities on paved roadways and these also were not designed for on road use.

Yamaha will not issue a disclaimer because they do not know how our Rhino was rebuilt. You are asking Yamaha to issue a disclaimer based on a rebuilt vehicle that they have no idea how it was rebuilt or even if it was rebuilt. No manufacture would issue such a disclaimer. This is why the RD-64 inspection form exists and that is for a licensed manufacture, shop or rebuilder to certify that the vehicle meets the standard and it is safe.

Rollover is not an issue as the speed for this vehicle has been reduced from the designed 41MPH to the low speed vehicle requirement of 25mph. We have also rebuilt our rhino to be approx 7 inches wider than the stock factory Rhino which at these low speeds rollover is next to impossible. The rollover litigation is more a problem brought by predatory attorneys than a problem with the Rhino. Since Yamaha has never had to admit any fault, then it should not be an issue for the DMV.

We have said time and time again we are willing to have this vehicle inspected by the DMV for full compliance of the law. We are also willing to perform roll over test with the DMV in attendance with our rebuilt Rhino.

Again I ask that the DMV stop using discriminatory practices, apply the laws and rules of the State Of Nevada and the Department Of Motor Vehicles equally and fairly and register our Rhino.

Thank you.

Craig Castleberry

[dunefreak]

Props to you for being persistant with it, Craig! Keep up the good work. I am behind this 100%. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

[SandBlasted]

Props to you for being persistant with it, Craig! Keep up the good work. I am behind this 100%. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

Thanks Pete You know that hard head I was talking about in my last post? I found another law by accident last night.

It has been the DMVs argument that they won't register the Rhino beause it is an off road vehicle.

NRS 490.060 “Off-highway vehicle” defined.

1. “Off-highway vehicle” means a motor vehicle that is designed primarily for off-highway and all-terrain use. The term includes, but is not limited to:

(a) An all-terrain vehicle;

(B) An all-terrain motorcycle;

© A dune buggy;

(d) A snowmobile; and

(e) Any motor vehicle used on public lands for the purpose of recreation.

[b]2. The term does not include:[/b]

(a) A motor vehicle designed primarily for use in water;

(B) A motor vehicle that is registered by the Department of Motor Vehicles; or

© A low-speed vehicle as defined in NRS 484.527.

The DMV will probably say it we don't recognize it as a Low Speed Vehicle so the law does not apply. If I got it registered in AZ as a low speed vehicle, and re-registered it here, it may force their hand.

We will see what the DMV says and go from there.

[Noozeyeguy]

Man... and I thought Ca DMV were a bunch of :clown:

Well-reasoned arguments, well-written correspondence, and a reasonable request. Obviously a recipe for disaster

Good luck to you, hope you can get something on the books.

[Vegas FX400]

Just a thought or something. In AZ , they ( SXS or quads) are not registered as a low speed vehicle. People ride them all over the street , there, they are registered as a motorcycle.

[MAXDOUT]

screw it.........................I'm moving to Arizona

Nevada sucks..........................we allow prostitution (brothels) and gambling....but cant drive side by side on the streets

good luck on your hard work.

[RAGDOLL MX]

i have a friend of mine, who lives here in vegas, and had his rhino registered...IN STOCK FORM!!! all he added was turn signals, and a horn. Ill have to ask him how he got it registered?

[Vegas FX400]

The one thing that is f*cked up, is that the law states that any vehicle that is registered from out of state, the current state must recognize it.

[04toy]

There is a guy in Pahrump that has his "Venom" dirt car registered. Next time I see him, I see him about once a week, I'll ask what the process was that he went through and post up. I know he added turn signals, marker lights and a horn, the rest of it is stock.

[SandBlasted]

Hello everyone. Thanks for the ideas and replies.

Any info you have on registered vehicles especially Side By Sides I really need to know about it. How it is registered like a Low Speed Vehicle, Motorcycle home built etc and the equipment needed to get it registered.

I just got off the phone with a Las Vegas Attorney today and he said the DMV has broad powers to deny registration, but if they do have side by sides belonging to residents that are registered you have a stronger case.

I told him of a possible plan to have it registered in AZ as a Low Speed Vehicle and bring it here for registration. He thought that was a good idea. He will also represent me if ticketed here driving on AZ plates as long as it is legally tied to AZ. This is a big gray area however.

It is also his recommendation that we have language in the law that allows the registration of side x sides this coming session.

[SandBlasted]

The one thing that is f*cked up, is that the law states that any vehicle that is registered from out of state, the current state must recognize it.

Is ths a Nevada law? Can you give me the NRS # or let me look at that law?

Thanks!

[Vegas FX400]

i will have to find it. I saw it some where, and someone was telling me about it. Kinda like out of state reg. cars. I work with alot of military and one of the guys was tellin me about too.

[Vegas FX400]

I havent found those yet, but also, what about this stuff????

NRS 490.110 Authorized and unauthorized operation on highway.

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, if an off-highway vehicle meets the requirements of this chapter and the operator holds a valid driver’s license and operates the off-highway vehicle in accordance with the requirements of those sections, the off-highway vehicle may be operated on a highway in accordance with NRS 490.090 to 490.130, inclusive.

2. An off-highway vehicle may not be operated pursuant to this section:

(a) On an interstate highway;

---> (B) On a paved highway in this State for more than 2 miles; or

© Unless the highway is specifically designated for use by off-highway vehicles in a city whose population is 100,000 or more.

(Added to NRS by 2005, 2028)

NRS 490.120 Required equipment for operation on highway. In addition to the requirements set forth in NRS 490.070, a person shall not operate an off-highway vehicle on a highway pursuant to NRS 490.090 to 490.130, inclusive, unless the off-highway vehicle has:

1. At least one headlamp that illuminates objects at least 500 feet ahead of the vehicle;

2. At least one tail lamp that is visible from at least 500 feet behind the vehicle;

3. At least one red reflector on the rear of the vehicle, unless the tail lamp is red and reflective;

4. A stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle; and

5. A muffler which is in working order and which is in constant operation when the vehicle is running.

(Added to NRS by 2005, 2028)

NRS 490.130 Duties of operator when operating vehicle on highway. The operator of an off-highway vehicle that is being driven on a highway in this State in accordance with NRS 490.090 to 490.130, inclusive, shall:

1. Comply with all traffic laws of this State;

2. Ensure that the certificate of operation for the off-highway vehicle is attached to the vehicle in accordance with NRS 490.080; and

3. Wear a helmet.

(Added to NRS by 2005, 2028)

I also just looked at the AZ dept. of M.V and fish and wildlife. For an ATV to be registered to operate on highways, it has to have the same as NRS 490.120..................and for a 4 wheeler, you have to have a "D" endorsement or class license.

Edited September 1, 2008 by vegas400ex

[SandBlasted]

That law is part of the new law that allowes riders to get from their home to the riding areas and has to be allowed by the city or county so it really will not work for us.

I havent found those yet, but also, what about this stuff????

NRS 490.110 Authorized and unauthorized operation on highway.

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, if an off-highway vehicle meets the requirements of this chapter and the operator holds a valid driver’s license and operates the off-highway vehicle in accordance with the requirements of those sections, the off-highway vehicle may be operated on a highway in accordance with NRS 490.090 to 490.130, inclusive.

2. An off-highway vehicle may not be operated pursuant to this section:

(a) On an interstate highway;

---> (B) On a paved highway in this State for more than 2 miles; or

© Unless the highway is specifically designated for use by off-highway vehicles in a city whose population is 100,000 or more.

(Added to NRS by 2005, 2028)

NRS 490.120 Required equipment for operation on highway. In addition to the requirements set forth in NRS 490.070, a person shall not operate an off-highway vehicle on a highway pursuant to NRS 490.090 to 490.130, inclusive, unless the off-highway vehicle has:

1. At least one headlamp that illuminates objects at least 500 feet ahead of the vehicle;

2. At least one tail lamp that is visible from at least 500 feet behind the vehicle;

3. At least one red reflector on the rear of the vehicle, unless the tail lamp is red and reflective;

4. A stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle; and

5. A muffler which is in working order and which is in constant operation when the vehicle is running.

(Added to NRS by 2005, 2028)

NRS 490.130 Duties of operator when operating vehicle on highway. The operator of an off-highway vehicle that is being driven on a highway in this State in accordance with NRS 490.090 to 490.130, inclusive, shall:

1. Comply with all traffic laws of this State;

2. Ensure that the certificate of operation for the off-highway vehicle is attached to the vehicle in accordance with NRS 490.080; and

3. Wear a helmet.

(Added to NRS by 2005, 2028)

I also just looked at the AZ dept. of M.V and fish and wildlife. For an ATV to be registered to operate on highways, it has to have the same as NRS 490.120..................and for a 4 wheeler, you have to have a "D" endorsement or class license.

[SandBlasted]

A man called me from New Mexico today after reading some info on our website about the LSV issue. According to him, there is a person in California that inspects and modifies the side by sides and reissues a MSO on the vehicle as a Low Speed Vehicle. He said for mine it will be a Yamaha Low Speed Vehicle.

The man in New Mexico said he has both a RZR and a Rhino done this way.

I talked to him today and he said he does quite a few in California and has done a few in New Mexico but not in Nevada.

I guess he started doign this because CA would not register converted dirt bikes.

What do you guys think? Oh and BTW if I have done all the work he charges 500.00 for this service which since it has not been done before in Nevada, make me a little nervious.

[OGP]

Do you have the contact info for the guy in Ca? I would like to register my rhino for street use.

[SandBlasted]

Do you have the contact info for the guy in Ca? I would like to register my rhino for street use.

At this point please give me a few days I wish to keep a few things close while I find out a few things from our DMV.

Send me an email at lsv@xoatv.com so i don't forget.

[SandBlasted]

Recently we contacted the DMV asking for clarification of NRS 490.060

Here is their reply and our reply.

Mr. Castleberry,

Attached is a link which supplies information by NHTSA pertaining to Low Speed Vehicles. Although the Yamaha Rhino is not specifically identified, it is the position of NHTSA that the type and style of vehicle you’re trying to register falls outside the parameters identified for a Low Speed Vehicle.

As stated in part within the attached document:

The term “motor vehicle” is defined by statute as “a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for the use on the public streets, roads and highways…” 49 U.S.C. & 30102 (a)(6). Accordingly, only vehicles that are operated on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of their primary uses, are considered to be motor vehicles, and vehicles which are solely used “off-road” are excluded.

Because the Safety Act establishes a self-certification system, it is the manufacturer of each of these vehicles, and not this agency, that has the obligation to determine whether these products are motor vehicles. The manufacturers of each of these vehicles advertise them for off-road use and do not consider them to be motor vehicles.

(Yamaha, the manufacture of the Rhino has taken the same position as Polaris for their Ranger 4X4, Cushman for their White Truck 611 and Kawasaki for their Mule 520 in that they are for off-road use only.)

Pursuant to NHTSA’s position on this matter the Rhino is not considered to be a “motor vehicle” and therefore your attempt to use the RD-64 claiming the Rhino is/was rebuilt, reconstructed or specially constructed are not applicable.

Further, it has come to my attention that you have attempted, and been unsuccessful in persuading the City Council of Boulder City to allow your type of vehicle to be operated on their city streets, evidently members of the City Council have expressed safety concerns.

Short of a change in the law it is the Department’s position that this matter is closed. I would like to recommend that you contact your legislator for possible changes to existing statues in order to accomplish what you are trying to do.

http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/BressantEPAltr.html

Respectfully,

Clay Thomas, Deputy Director

DMV

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

Dear Mr. Thomas.

Thank you for your reply. With regard to the info you sent, I noticed the date was back and 02 and now it is 08, about 6 years ago, long before most of the newer side by sides were made and long before other states were registering this type of vehicle. I will contact the agency who issued this letter for an update. I also want to ask that does this letter not also apply to motorcycles sold as dirt bikes which are being converted and registered in Nevada?

I did notice one of the items in this letter was out dated and does not apply, which leaves me wondering if how much actually does apply, mainly the disqualification of a LSV with a bed, also known as a truck in the letter. Since the GEM car comes in a model that has a truck body, this information seems to be out old and outdated. Back in 02 we were not concerned as much about the price of a gallon of gas or how many pollutants we were dumping in the air. Now is the cry to save the planet and conserve fuel. (See gemcar.com)

One day when I called up to the Carson city office, I was told by a DMV employee who was telling me based on the law as he read it, we should be able to register our Rhino. He also said what he thought was a Mule, was out in the parking lot with a NDOT plate on it. I explained to the DMV employee there is an exemption for government. Safe is safe Mr. Thomas. If it is not safe for us to use this type of vehicle on the road how is it safe for the State of Nevada? I know there are exemptions in law for the State, but come on. If you’re really concerned about safety then why are they on the road?

How many of these type of Vehicles does the State of Nevada have on the roads? We see them everywhere, from the Cities to the State and even the National Park Service. If they are a good idea for government entities, then why is it not a good idea for the citizens of Nevada? If Side X Side are safe enough for government employees to operate, why not for us common folks?

Small towns all across Nevada have either just allowed them to operate or local governments have enacted permits to operate them on the city streets. In some towns which border AZ., some of the residents get them registered in AZ and drive in Nevada. Also since most western states and many more throughout the country now allow registration of these vehicles in one form or another, it still seems the Nevada DMV is just being stubborn on this issue for some reason, which most people can’t fathom.

You have dug deep for any and every reason not to register it, dug up old laws, applied laws that conflict with other laws and with no offence meant seems to fly in the face of common sense when you look at what is on the road and what government is asking from the people in conservation. Have you even looked into laws that will allow you to register them? Are the many states that do allow them scoff laws, or have they just found ways to get it done?

I also want to ask, there is a company in California that rebuilds these vehicles and issues a new MSO which states it is a Low Speed Vehicle. I have seen Side X Sides registered in California and until the past few days have not been able to figure out how they have been registered. New Mexico which has not allowed the registration of these vehicles in the past also now accepts this new MSO from this company and allows registration.

If I send our Rhino to Ca and return to Nevada with a new MSO stating it is a low speed vehicle, will it now be registered? If not will you please explain why?

On the local issue, which I don’t see why this has any bearing on the current discussion, we had our Rhino registered as a golf cart with the DMV. Boulder City allowed the carts on the streets for 15 years and Mule on the street for 2 or 3 years. Only when more owners of side by sides and golf carts confronted with high fuel prices starting putting them on the road, the city manager said get them off the road. According to people privy to the meeting with the City PD and other non elected officials, she did not like how slow they operated and said “have you ever been behind one of them?” Never mind a 25 mph speed limit is the limit not the minimum. We at one time had a majority on the council who were in favor of allowing them. While the current makeup of the council has changed somewhat, the goal by the city manager was defeat. Under her direction, city staff came up with a plan that would cost over 300,000 to implement. Golf Carts and Side by Sides were not voted down, only the cost associated with the city mangers plan. It was then we decided to go the state route and since there were already LSV’s in town, this should not be a problem.

While safety is always a concern, many use safety strictly as a hammer so not to allow others to do things they don’t agree with. Many bring up safety issues by hysteria not knowing any real stats. Yes this was brought up but no one could find any real safety issues here in Boulder City with past golf carts driven in the city. The Police Chief was also not concerned. When council and citizens looked at scooters, VW dune buggy’s with no roll bars and other items currently on the road including the GEM car compared with our Side By Sides, most felt the Side by Side was a better built and safer vehicle. Being in public safety as a firefighter for over 20 years and as a EMT, I can attest that there are a lot more unsafe vehicles operating a high speeds while our rebuilt Rhino operates on the streets at 25mph.

Thank you.

Craig Castleberry

Edited September 4, 2008 by SandBlasted

[Vegas FX400]

Nice reply

[SandBlasted]

Nice reply

On deaf ears....

It will be interesting to see how he responds to the MSO question.

[SandBlasted]

Since Nevada is now using federal law to stop us from receiving registration I'm going to find out from the NHTSA and see if I can get a more current ruling.

Dear Mr. Seigel or to whom it may concern.

I am writing to you today for some clarification of low speed vehicles and what is allowed to be a LSV and what is not. My topic is conversion of existing golf carts and side by side vehicles.

We own a Yamaha Rhino 660. After contacting the DMV we were told according to the state law we could register our Yamaha Rhino 660 as a low speed vehicle. We had to meet the state law and federal law 500:571. (*1) After conversion we were denied registration because when it was made it was designed as an off road vehicle and told federal law prohibits conversion of off-road vehicles to on-road vehicles. We were also told our golf cart can’t be registered as a LSV because it also is an off-road vehicle.

When we read the information of conversations leading up to the final rule of 500:571 (*2), we came away with the impression golf carts can be converted to LSV’s. There is no mention of Side by Side vehicles like our Yamaha Rhino, however since a golf cart was also not designed to be a on-road vehicle, we could see no difference if either one was converted.

We have rebuilt our Yamaha Rhino to fully meet the 500:571 and our state law. This vehicle meets or exceeds all safety equipment defined by 500:571 including the AS-5 Glazing Standards, Seat Belts, Lighting and more and will not travel over 25 mph. It has an up graded safety cage and leg protection. Modification to the suspension for added rollover protection.

We are enclosing photos or our rebuilt Yamaha Rhino, but please note, when the photos were taken our seat belts were on order and not installed. We now have dual shoulder seat belts installed. (Racing Seat Belts) it was necessary when we upgraded the roll cage.

We understand the difference between federal law and state law and my questions only concern federal law.

Having studied the issue carefully over several months I have found a document (Letter from the NHTSA) where a LSV can’t have a rear bed, making it a truck. That letter is dated 2002. Since then Gem car produces several LSV’s with a truck type bed. Since our golf cart and our Yamaha Rhino has a bed as well, is this now legal? At http://gemcar.com you can clearly see the beds in question. If our bed is indeed illegal, can we remove it with something custom and be legal?

Can our Golf Cart be converted to a LSV as defined in 500:571?

Can our Yamaha Rhino be converted to a LSV as defined by 500:571

If not, is there any way for it to be converted in federal law?

Can it be converted by the owner?

Can it be converted by a shop or rebuilder?

Many states allow registration of these vehicles, many are plated as a special vehicles, motorcycles or as LSV’s. If they can’t be converted how are the states that do allow registration operating within law?

Photos enclosed.

*1 http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations...00§ion_toc=2126

*2 http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/lsv/lsv.html

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Craig Castleberry

Edited September 5, 2008 by SandBlasted

[SandBlasted]

Dear Mr. Thomas

It was also a pleasure talking to you yesterday. I want to stress I’m not trying to beat a dead horse, however it still remains in my opinion that the DMV is confusing regulations that apply to passenger vehicles and LSV’s. Using the link you provided me I have found several references about low speed vehicle equipment. There are 3 standards that must be meet in 500:571. Speed testing, which 500:571 has all the necessary testing procedures for and is pretty simple. Seat Belts meeting Type 1 And Type 2 Standards, and AS-1 or AS-5 Glazing. Anything more added seems to be issues the DMV is confusing with passenger type vehicles.

I have added a few of the points you brought and have asked for clarification from the NHTSA on several points our discussion produced yesterday. If anything these items need to be addressed before we ask for a law change.

I have found a letter where with the exception of the three items listed, there are no performance standards that exist. For example for a passenger vehicle there is a parking brake standard, but for LSVs under 500:571 it simply states it must have a parking break. Excerpts from this letter state: At the present time, Standard No. 500 simply requires a low-speed vehicle to be equipped with a parking brake (S5(B)(7)). We have adopted no performance specifications for a parking brake on a low-speed vehicle. We define "parking brake" as "a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle" (Sec. 571.3(B)). Therefore, any device or mechanism installed on a low-speed vehicle that performs the function stated in the definition would be acceptable as a parking brake.

Another letter also exist about equipment and excerpts from this letter state: Standard No. 500 also requires LSVs to be equipped with certain items of lighting equipment, mirrors, and parking brakes, but it does not specify that these items must comply with Standards Nos. 108, 111, and 135, the Federal standards establishing performance requirements for lighting equipment, mirrors, and parking brakes. The American Association for Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) petitioned for reconsideration of Standard No. 500 and asked that States be allowed to establish their own performance requirements for these equipment items. We agreed, and on September 1, 2000, we published a notice (65 FR 53219), copy enclosed, saying (at 53221) that States "may adopt and apply their own performance requirements for required LSV lighting equipment, mirrors, and parking brakes until we have established performance requirements for those items of equipment." To date we have neither proposed nor established these requirements.

The latest letter I have found so far is dated 2006. It make it pretty clear on standards and states: There are only two FMVSSs applicable to low-speed vehicles. They are, FMVSS No. 500; "Low speed vehicles," and FMVSS No. 205 "Glazing materials." I enclose both standards. I note FMVSS No. 500 incorporates certain requirements found in other FMVSSs by reference. However, the requirements in FMVSS No. 110 are not referenced in FMVSS No. 500.

This letter dated back in 2004 states modified golf carts are motor vehicles when modified and the modifier becomes the manufacture. This tells me when I modified my Rhino I became the Manufacture and since I have tested the Rhino I am responsible for the certification. This Letter States: The act of modifying a golf cart for use on the public roads would, however, create a motor vehicle to which new-vehicle FMVSSs would become applicable at the time of the modification. For purposes of compliance with NHTSA’s regulations, we would regard the modifier as the manufacturer. As a motor vehicle manufacturer, the modifier would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle conformed to all applicable safety standards. These would vary depending on whether the vehicle was an LSV or some other type of motor vehicle.

In regards to the MSO we discussed and performance testing, it would seem as long as the vehicle meets the three standards with regards to speed, seat belts and glazing no other rule or standards exist in federal law as it pertains to equipment installed besides what is listed in 500:571 the most complicated test is the speed test, which if you read it, is not difficult. Basically in 1.0 mile on a road the test surface has not more than a 1 percent gradient in the direction of testing and not more than a 2 percent gradient perpendicular to the direction of testing. The vehicle must also be tested in the opposite direction within 30 min. This could easily be performed by the DMV in Henderson as I believe this road is longer than 1 mile.

Many of these letters are very old, and I have asked for clarification of any rule changes that may have changed over the years including conversion questions, the off-road question and emissions. I wish to note, according to the DMV with regards to kit cars and home made vehicles the vehicles emissions standards for registration are the standards that exist for the engine at time of manufacture. I was told these standards are met in federal law. If no testing is required on the engine like a motorcycle engine, then no testing is required on the kit car.

Thank you,

Craig Castleberry

Edited September 6, 2008 by SandBlasted