Legal Issues that could effect all MV Owners

[papabear]

View attachment 447232Yep Zout there is a nice power pole for your use. All I have to do is move my M8109 and you are good to go. Come on up !!!!

Is that white sand I see everywhere...like Panama City Beach FL??

 

[3dAngus]

Again, the Feds policy in writing from the then Acting Chief Counsel NHTSA, John Womack, at the time.
If anything has changed, the State of Georgia has some sort of obligation to reveal it in writing. Otherwise, they are in violation of Federal laws. This is the type of thing our State Representatives would want to see, especially State Senator, and the kind of thing they can act on quickly. They cannot and will not act on any emotional response. They will just put you off unless you offer to go up to Atlanta to see them.

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John M. Tolliday -- President, Dayman USA Inc. (Bedford, VA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/89 from Stephen P. Wood to Clifford Anglewicz (Sec 102); Also attached to letter dated 9/2/93 from John M. Tolliday to John Womack (OCC 9063)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of September 2, 1993, with respect to your wish to import "British Army Ferret Armored Cars." The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine.

By way of background, I would like to discuss how military vehicles manufactured in the United States are treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The first qu estion to be answered is whether any particular vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Safety Act, that is to say, whether it is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. If we conclude that a vehicle is manufac tured primarily for on road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle. As for individual vehicle types, to state the obvious, a tracked motor vehicle such as a tank intended for cross-country off-road terrains is not a "motor vehicle." If a vehicle, suc h as a military bus, has been manufactured primarily for on- road use, it is a "motor vehicle." However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forc es of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)). Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful milita ry life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS (however, because of safety policy considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV vehicles).

The importation of used military vehicles manufactured abroad is governed differently. Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether a Ferret, at the time of importation, would be considered a "motor vehicle." In an interpretation concerning an "armored security vehicle" then being used by the U.S. armed for ces, we informed the manufacturer, Verne Corporation on August 7, 1989, that the vehicle would have to conform to the FMVSS if sold for civilian use. I enclose a copy of that interpretation. We believe that this interpretation applies to the Ferret as well, and, therefore, the vehicle is not exempt from the FMVSS. Because of the

overall configuration of the Ferret with its high approach and departure angles and its suitability for use on rough terrain, the FMVSS that would apply are those that must be met by a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Assuming you are still interested in importing the Ferret's for resale, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the Ferrets be imported by a "re gistered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet t he FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

By the way, this has been going off and on for years. The Georgia DMV is a complete embarrassment to the people of the Great State of Georgia. It is the most unprofessional run office in the State of Georgia.
The Governor should rip it down and build it back up on behalf of the people of the State of Georgia, and be there to serve, not to dictate.

In any case, the top down approach, rather than this bottom up approach is the ONLY way to get finite results from out of these offices. If you are sucessful working it without the help of a State
Representative, and without something in writing, it will be a "one time shot", just like all the other sucesses we have heard about, which are few and far between.

Good luck.

p.s. the letter can be found on the NHTSA website at;

http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/94/nht94-1.78.html

 

[zout]

That is pretty much where I personally ended up today in thinking and going to act.
I was given the wrong contact at the Dept of Revenue and as just advised of that about an half hour ago. That was a total waste of precious time and self induced aggravation.

This above is of great help - I had pulled many a good Gov't documents today for their review when I send them on - on how that justification was total crapola - these documents state otherwise.

Tomorrow the top of the heap will be getting contacted and I printed off the above document as well.
I was told that the correct person above could be contacted (no duh) and he would be happy to discuss with me about the decision (not interested in him anymore) - calling his boss.

That 50 amp power pole is looking sweeter everyday. I love a beach hookup.

 

[maccus]

That 50 amp power pole is looking sweeter everyday. I love a beach hookup.
[/QUOTE]

It is waiting for you Z. Bring that old GI with you. The white stuff is well.........you know. Not a real beach sort of a son of a beach deal.

 

[zout]

Maccus - My power supply is on the other side of the truck - ahhhh leftie - rightie ----- anyhow after today hours of being on the phone - faxing and mailing packets we are at the TOP working with them directly. At the end of the day I found some very fascinating stuff that I e mailed a couple folks to review to make sure this knucklehead was on tract and proceeding as best as we could be to represent outselves as a WHOLE entity - MV loving folks that want to remember and support our troops and the history behind this all. More to come.

 

[zout]

As this issue stands at the end of this week: Feds have been contacted to the direct office with all supporting documentation sent to them. There was a last minute document sent after the main packet had been mailed. This Fed personnel will be off Monday and will be back in the office Tuesday on. We had a great conversation on the phone and dealing directly with the person WE need to be. I have been sending PB material to make sure I am in no conflict on how this should be pursued. Waiting now until I am contacted back while I have other bigger issues to take care of that determines whether I have a future job or not. I just wanted to update the Ga folks holding these vehicles to assure them progress is still on forward motion and pitbull still on the hunt. That's all for now.

 

[undysworld]

Zout,

I just noticed where this thread seemed to be going. It sounds as if you are running into the same situation we did in Wisconsin: that former military vehicles are considered to not meet FMVSS, and are therefore not able to be registered.

A couple thoughts for you. In our fight, one of our group discovered the MILSPEC documents that proved in court that vehicles built to U.S. military specifications MUST meet FMVSS as part of their contractual obligations. It's spelled out as applying to non-tracked vehicles up to and including 5-ton variants. I should be able to get you this info if you want. EDIT: Here's a link: http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1100-1299/MIL-STD-1180B_22183/

The letter of interpretation above is pretty old, but still applicable. The guy I've been in contact with at USDOT/NHTSA is Coleman Sachs, and he provided me with a letter confirming that under Federal law, ALL VEHICLES OLDER THAN 25 YEARS ARE EXEMPTED FROM FMVSS REGULATIONS. Of course, this does not alter a state's law that might require a FMVSS label, but it's not in conformity with Federal law. We are currently in the process of changing Wis. law to better reflect Fed. law.

Glad to hear that you're a pitbull. Sometimes that's the determination that it takes. Feel free to contact me if you are interested in the MILSPEC document or just have some questions.

Good luck on your quest.
Paul

EDIT: Coleman Sachs' email:
Coleman.Sachs@dot.gov
Coleman Sachs, Chief
Import and Certification Division
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

 

[zout]

Thanks Paul and it is greatly appreciated. I had several Manufacture documents which supported the same issue - they met code even tho not decaled. What makes it a tad difficult is we have a 1992 vehicle - Manufacturer out of business to direct contact - probably would not spend the time of day with anyone on the phone over this but it was a passing thought. If I recall some of the Federal documents also supported this. I saved your link and will run through it - its good for back up ammo. 3DAngus also gave a great letter above as well that was part of the packet sent last Thursday. Now that we actually have someone who is listening we'll see where this directs us. Come to think of it - I even had the Federal Standards and Specifications document in that packet for that year as well - plus some stuff from GlobalSecurity comparison of the new Oskosh stuff to these specific unit - Intended for Highway and Roads and Capable of off road - not vice versa.

 

[undysworld]

Also FYI, Here's a link to the Wisconsin Dept. of Admin. Div. of Hearings and Appeals case over the Chevrolet Blazer, during which the MILSPEC document won the argument. It's a notice that the case is being reopened. http://dha.state.wi.us/home/Decisions/DOT/2011/110016rhg.pdf

It was originally Case TR-11-0016, and was initially lost, but was reopened upon discovery of the MILSPEC info. It was reheard in 2012, but I could not locate a link to the rehearing decision. I'm unsure why the final rehearing decision is not available. However, I've got a hard copy of the final ruling, dated Feb. 20, 2012 and signed by administrator David Schwarz, and will provide you with a copy upon request.

Perhaps if you run into continuing problems, you might do well to provide them with this court ruling.

 

[zout]

Thanks - BUT - Georgia is an entity by itself - they do not or have to acknowledge what any other State is doing or had done when it comes to how they wish to Title or Register vehicles. Even if I had a solid Title in another States name and wanted to transfer it to a Georgia title where I now have residence - they DO NOT have to honor it under their own regulations and legislation for what they have in writing. What has to be done is pick at the documents how the State of Georgia has them presented - see if there are flaws in them (which is now proven) and either get them to title and register the vehicles OR work on getting the issue in front of GEORGIA general committee to make a ruling on it and then put into law. And the bigger thought is - why has NO ONE pm'd that owned these or going to or want to own them in GA to find out whom I am speaking with so they can join in the band wagon sort of speaking to make THEIR voice heard instead of just mine. Does any one know who the 3%ers were = there is your answer.

 

[3rdaavbn]

I have a 69 Kaiser Jeep M35A2 bought from GL w/ the SF97. I went to the tag office in Dekalb county and got my title in the mail in about 2 weeks. I did however have to get a form to bring to "any" law enforcement officer to verify the VIN and sign that it was the VIN on the truck and was the same on the title. Unfortunately you just have to find a Government employee able to think outside the box. I have titled alot of vehicles over the years, I can tell you which ones in my local office can and will work with me, and which ones will be the "deer in the headlights".

 

[mtullis]

I will call Monday, just inbox me the info.

Thanks - BUT - Georgia is an entity by itself - they do not or have to acknowledge what any other State is doing or had done when it comes to how they wish to Title or Register vehicles. Even if I had a solid Title in another States name and wanted to transfer it to a Georgia title where I now have residence - they DO NOT have to honor it under their own regulations and legislation for what they have in writing. What has to be done is pick at the documents how the State of Georgia has them presented - see if there are flaws in them (which is now proven) and either get them to title and register the vehicles OR work on getting the issue in front of GEORGIA general committee to make a ruling on it and then put into law. And the bigger thought is - why has NO ONE pm'd that owned these or going to or want to own them in GA to find out whom I am speaking with so they can join in the band wagon sort of speaking to make THEIR voice heard instead of just mine. Does any one know who the 3%ers were = there is your answer.

 

[undysworld]

Thanks - BUT - Georgia is an entity by itself - they do not or have to acknowledge what any other State is doing or had done when it comes to how they wish to Title or Register vehicles.

I FULLY AGREE. This is what I wrote previously:

Of course, this does not alter a state's law that might require a FMVSS label

Titling is a federal issue, but registration is the responsibility of each individual state.

You're right, they do not have to acknowledge any other state. BUT, sometimes courts will consider prior court decisions, especially so if it's a similar law dealing with similar evidence. Since the piece of evidence that reopened and reversed the original court order is a Federal government document, it might sway the department's opinion.

I only offer it up in case you find it of help. If you guys are being held up on lack of proof of compliance with FMVSS, it may be relevant.

 

[zout]

The man I was speaking to was off yesterday - I have my hands absolutely full with work related stuff right now. I did find over the weekend with the short amount of time I had located the Manufacture's testing agencies and the Federal Compliance they tested by - on one of the documents thoughout it states FMVSS tested - The mil spec doc info mentioned by another awesome member was of great help as well because the testing agency contracted by the Fed Govt states the specific Mil Spec doc as well as the FMVSS info although the units were not required to received a decal (sticker if ya like) but the testing was done per the given year standards to meet and better yet EXCEED specifications. I am holding this for tucked away ammo - lets see how the rest of this week plays out on their end and hold this a JOKERS WILD card. That's all for now.

 

[zout]

Cannot run it yet on the road - but this baby is lookin sweeter day by day

 

[Tinwoodsman]

Titles are important but I can visualize us bellying up to the bar for a shot of Crown, Budwiser, Nachos with cheese sauce and cream cheese and pepper jelly with crackers.

 

[papabear]

Cannot run it yet on the road - but this baby is lookin sweeter day by dayView attachment 448273

Dammitman!!!
I was looking forward to enough room for PB, ZOUT and TWM to have our rocking chairs on the "back porch" and sipping Crown!!

Might be a good thing though cause TWM is known for throwing rocks at folks (like Earnest T. Bass on Andy Griffin Show) and Zout is known for shouting obscenities at folks passing by.
PB is know for his soft spoken, easy going lovey dovey personality!

 

[zout]

Stay Tuned - taking our third breath and regrouping with other mission tested personnel to handle this.

 

[Squirt-Truck]

Status?

 

[papabear]

Lions 2...Christians 0.

It takes lots of battles before a war is lost....or won.