NV honors "reciprocity" with respect to DMV regs for each state. As long as you are legal in your state (i.e., non-commercial MV covered by DL regardless of weight), then you are OK in NV....if you are not required to have any special endorsements for your MV with a GVWR over 26,001-lbs in your state, then you are good to go in & through NV.
Warren,
It is my opinion that the reciprocity exists everywhere, but I have yet to nail that down completely in terms of finding it within the law of each state. I have only looked at the states I am likely to travel in, as well. Nevada is one of the few that has an excellent mention of it in the Nevada Revised Statutes -
"NRS §483.240 Exemptions from licensing. The following persons are exempt from license under the provisions of NRS 483.010 to 483.630, inclusive:
3. A nonresident who is at least 16 years of age and who has in his or her immediate possession a valid license issued to the person in his or her home state or country may drive a motor vehicle in this State of the type or class the person may operate in that home state or country."
Other states do not have such clear wording.
...The key with non-commercial is that NO currency changes hands as a result of the drive; so if you are receiving reimbursement for fuel while hauling non-commercial, you are now considered to be a commercial carrier.
One of the very first line of questionings I received during my application for Class A N/C was what I intended to use the license for; I explained my collection of antique Caterpillars as well as attending various classic truck & tractor shows around western states. I was then asked if there would be any prizes or purses during these shows, as this would constitute a commercial endeavor. Luckily I know my work, and this is never a possibility for my vehicles, so I successfully flew through this line of inquiry. There cannot be ANY possibility of you receiving any funds for your driving with a Non-Commercial driver's license in Nevada (I'm sure most other states are similar). You cannot receive reimbursements for fuel, miles, time, labor, etc... Your hauls can ONLY be done for personal purposes. You CAN transport your items/vehicles/equipment to/from events as long as you are not being paid for it; you can attend swap meets and buy/sell your stuff as long as you are not a vendor, personal use ONLY. You can transport other people's vehicles and equipment as a favor, as long as you are not being reimbursed in any way for this service....I have done so and when questioned I simply reply that I will be the operator and/or crew member on the equipment, and we are doing so as a hobby and for pure personal enjoyment.
I hope this makes sense; many Motor Carrier Enforcement LEOs have creative ways of inquiry to try to get you to admit that you are operating as a commercial carrier.
While I try to shy away from the aforementioned "rumor mill" and ultimately have no way to provide any truth to the following info, a friend of mine has had occasion to use his military vehicles to move equipment for a museum and was told by his lawyer, the museum, perhaps their lawyers, etc that he could be reimbursed for fuel, food, lodging, vehicle maintenance, etc and remain non-commercial because there is indeed a difference between reimbursement of costs incurred and straight up for-profit operation. I have come across other things that would lead me to believe that this might also be the case. The FMCSA's website has a nice "guidance question" area and has the following about the § 390.3(f)(3) FMCSR exception. -
"
Question 21: Does the exemption in § 390.3(f)(3) for the ‘‘occasional transportation of personal property by individuals not for compensation nor in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise’’ apply to persons who occasionally use CMVs to transport cars, boats, horses, etc., to races, tournaments, shows or similar events, even if prize money is offered at these events?
Guidance: The exemption would apply to this kind of transportation, provided: (1) The underlying activities are not undertaken for profit, i.e., (a) prize money is declared as ordinary income for tax purposes, and (b) the cost of the underlying activities is not deducted as a business expense for tax purposes; and, where relevant; (2) corporate sponsorship is not involved. Drivers must confer with their State of licensure to determine the licensing provisions to which they are subject."
To me, this is almost a straight up "If the IRS doesn't think you're commercial, neither do we" attitude, and is nice to see on the Federal level. However, this is just one guidance question answer in regards to one particular part of one regulation, and on the Federal level, not a particular state. What I am interested in seeking out is written law in various states about different subjects related to our use of military vehicles. Certainly, what you're saying about reimbursement invalidating any claims on non-commerical use is something that "everyone knows," but I want to find it in writing. I want to move things that "everyone knows" out of realm of just being repeated to what can be cited in the law. I don't have an answer to this (yet) and it very well probably is the kind of thing where roadside law enforcement can be subject to interpretation.
There is an air brake endorsement; it is incorporated with the Class A or B licensing, regardless if commercial or non-commercial.
Because of the long history of farming & ranching in NV, the Non-Commercial designation is primarily used for these folks to move their equipment from location to location legally.
The "J" endorsement is becoming an issue, as more and more pickups have towing abilities up to 30K-lbs (1-ton duallies in particular). So if you are a NV resident and tow a trailer over 10K-lbs GVWR (as listed on its data plate, whether civvy or MV), get the "J" endorsement. It's not hard, as long as you know how to back a trailer safely. Good peace of mind if you are involved in a collision/accident.
On Nevada's CDL, is there an air brake endorsement? Or is it a restriction? In Arizona, there is no air brake endorsment, only an air brake restriction. It might seem like minutiae, but I think there is an important difference in most cases.
This article says what I would say better than I could -
http://illinoistruckcops.org/?p=758
(EDIT - Above link no longer works, but this is the text of the article pasted below -)
"Legendary golfer
Arnold Palmer once said “golf is deceptively simple and endlessly complicated”. Many times when confronted with understanding a dynamic concept, our brain over-complicates things. Instead of just standing back and looking at the big picture, we make a puzzle out of it and try to fit pieces into places they do not belong. A common place to see this manifested is figuring how airbrakes play into commercial driver’s licenses.
Braking is obviously a critical system on heavy trucks. Those who are going to drive trucks requiring CDL’s need to demonstrate their ability to understand these systems in a vehicle representative to what they will be driving in the real world…and herein lies the confusion.
It is not uncommon to hear someone say “that truck has airbrakes…you need a CDL to operate it” or “you can’t drive that truck without an airbrake
endorsement”. Both of these statements are incorrect. Airbrakes do not make a truck CDL worthy and there is no such thing as an airbrake endorsement.
If a driver desires a Class-B CDL, he will need to test in a
representative straight truck. If he wants to obtain his Class-A, then he will need to test in a
representative combination of vehicles. But he is NOT required to test in vehicles with airbrakes. However, if the testing vehicles are representative of the class of CDL desired, but neither vehicle has airbrakes, the
Secretary of State will put an “L”
restriction on the license.
Here’s an example: picture a large 2-axle dump truck commonly used by landscapers that only requires a Class-C non-CDL license…like an
International 4700 series. Sometimes these trucks pull larger tag trailers that now put the combination in the Class-A CDL category…yet neither vehicle has airbrakes. A potential CDL driver can use this combination of vehicles to test for his Class-A CDL. If he is successful, he will obtain his Class-A with the “L” restriction. However, he cannot use his new found CDL to drive other CDL vehicles that have airbrakes simply because he has a CDL. If he would like to lift the “L” restriction and lawfully operate a CDL worthy truck with airbrakes, he must go back to the SOS and pass a battery of tests in a representative vehicle to prove his operational knowledge.
The “L” restriction for airbrakes only applies when the CDL holder is operating a vehicle requiring a CDL. There are trucks manufactured with airbrakes that do not require a CDL at all. In these cases, a CDL holder with an “L” restriction may operate this vehicle because the restriction does not apply.
Why is this an issue deserving discussion? In the event a driver is operating a CDL vehicle without a being classified or endorsed properly, the Illinois Vehicle Code prescribes a misdemeanor charge (
625 ILCS 5/6-507-A-3). Many local police departments require officers to make a custodial arrest of the driver for misdemeanor traffic offenses. This may include towing and impounding the truck, fingerprinting, mug shots, and assignment of criminal State and Federal ID numbers. That is big deal. However, if a CDL driver is indeed violating an airbrake restriction, it is only a petty offense (
625 ILCS 5/6-113).
A minor traffic offense can easily become an unlawful arrest situation due to a lack of understanding. There’s no need to complicate things."
This is an additional article that has a similar stance -
www.donahuetrucks.net
I will paste the text of the article here in case this new link goes bad at some point in the future as well -
"CDL Clarification - Air Brake Restriction
There has been some confusion as to whether a CDL is required when driving a truck with air brakes. The CDL is
NOT required unless the vehicle has a GVWR or a GCWR of 26,001 lbs. or more; is designed to transport 16 or more passengers (including the driver); or hauls hazardous materials requiring placards. For example, a person can drive a straight truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,000 (under 26,001 lbs.) with air brakes, and no CDL is required. The "air brake" reference is commonly thought of as an "endorsement". It is NOT an endorsement, but rather a "restriction" that states if an applicant either fails the air brake component of the knowledge test, or performs the skills test in a vehicle not equipped with air brakes, the State shall indicate on the CDL that the person is restricted from operating a CMV equipped with air brakes. As further clarification, the regulations REQUIRING a CDL do NOT include any reference to air brakes; they only require a CDL for a vehicle in the following categories (§383.91 Commercial motor vehicle groups):
(a)(1) Combination vehicle (Group A) -- Any combination of vehicles with a gross combination weight rating (GCWR) of 11,794 kilograms or more (26,001 pounds or more) provided the GVWR of the vehicle(s) being towed is in excess of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds).
(a)(2) Heavy Straight Vehicle (Group B) -- Any single vehicle with a GVWR of 11,794 kilograms or more (26,001 pounds or more), or any such vehicle towing a vehicle not in excess of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) GVWR.
(a)(3) Small Vehicle (Group C) -- Any single vehicle, or combination of vehicles, that meets neither the definition of Group A nor Group B, as contained in this section, but that either is designed to transport 16 or more passengers including the driver, or is used in the transportation of materials found to be hazardous for the purposes of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and which require the motor vehicle to be placarded under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 172, subpart F)."
![[thumbzup]](https://www.steelsoldiers.com/images/smilies/icon_smile_thumzup.gif "Thumbs Up [thumbzup]"){kind=icon}
