Fun's Over in Bama, State Requires EPA/DOT Certificates of Conforminty

[abh3]

Imagine my surprise when I try to title and register my A3 to get all good and legal: I have a valid FL title (where my GL billing address was) but am now told that the head of titles at Al Dept of Rev has decided ex military (and postal) vehicles MUST have EPA and DOT Certificates of Conformity or Waivers to be TITLED much less tagged.

Looks like game over for the hobby, in Alabama at least! It was nice while it lasted, hope they don't 'ex post facto' the ones that are registered already. I'll be contacting my state rep, etc. but this looks bad...

 

[avengeusa]

this sucks!

 

[clinto]

Is this change reflected on the AL DMV/DOT websites?

Where could an action committee find the wording of the new regulations in the Alabama govt.'s own words?

If this is true, then the AL MVPA (Dixie Division) and the National Chapter are going to need to mobilize and get working on it so you don't see a repeat of the lunacy in Wisconsin and Kansas.

 

[grayw0lf]

That's scary! I'm going to try & get a tag for my new M1009 today or tomorrow.

 

[glcaines]

Imagine my surprise when I try to title and register my A3 to get all good and legal: I have a valid FL title (where my GL billing address was) but am now told that the head of titles at Al Dept of Rev has decided ex military (and postal) vehicles MUST have EPA and DOT Certificates of Conformity or Waivers to be TITLED much less tagged.

I would recommend the following.

1. Demand to see a copy of the legislation where this is now required. Alabama has been notoriously free of harrassing rules compared to some states.

2. If indeed this is true, contact your state Senator and Representative by telephone and ask for assistance. Some states, such as Florida, have passed legislation specifically protecting the MV hobby.

 

[ABN173]

Wow, I am from Birmingham and while I plan to retire back at Columbus, GA, but plan B was to move back to Alabama. Now I'm not so sure.......

I bet Wreckerman is going to flip when he sees this thread.

This sounds bad

-Dale

 

[wsucougarx]

I imagine GL is filling their drawers as well. They may need to truck thier MV out of state for higer bids

 

[mstrmstr]

Luckily, in Indiana, we recognize contiguous states.. say if titled in Illinois,Kentucky,Michigan or Ohio the State recognizes their titles without any hassles.

Although I had my Mite registered as a car we are also aware that we can register any 25 year old vehicle as a ANTIQUE/VINTAGE/HISTORICAL motor vehicle.
This is a exemptive registration.

Most of the boys around here just do the Vintage thing with a "vanity plate" to personalize their prize.

I also suggest( once the actual ruling is in hand) contacting your local and state politicians and inform them we, our family and friends are avid VOTERS.
Remind them how many ex military reside in their state and how many organizations we support.

 

[Alredneck]

Considering most MV were exempt from meeting DOT standards, you should be able to call them and say what the clerks office is telling you and get a exemption. This does suck. One reason I became a TN resident when I was in the Army. WM is going to flip

 

[strycnine]

If true that blows

 

[TIGERFANS2]

Everyone (every mortal that is) has a boss.......

 

[XM 2742]

If true is the keyword in the mess.

Could just be a dept head overstateing the law.

 

[abh3]

Here's the Code of Alabama, #3 is the problem. I'm told the legislature intended this to regulate grey-market imports and all those people trying to tag everything from ATVs to golfcarts. Remember this is Alabama, where Count Rossi registered a Porsche 917 (!) back in the day so he could drive it on the streets, while he was here he set some records at Talladega... Another example of unintended consequenses I guess.
Section 32-8-42

Refusing certificate.

The department shall refuse issuance of certificate of title if any required fee is not paid or if the department has reasonable grounds to believe that one of the following exists:
(1) The applicant is not the owner of the vehicle.
(2) The application contains a false or fraudulent statement.
(3) The vehicle was not manufactured to comply with federal and state statutes, rules, and regulations governing safety, emissions, and antitheft standards in effect at the time of manufacture, and has not subsequently been modified to comply with the standards.
(4) A vehicle is designated a 1974 year model or prior year model.
(5) The applicant fails to furnish required information or documents or any additional information the department reasonably requires.
(Acts 1973, No. 765, p. 1147, §11; Act 2003-345, p. 870, §1.)


I'm taking a run at the EPA & DOT for Certificates of Conformity or Waivers, so far so good, no real guff or resistance, just the wheels have to turn and the usual "What kind of car is this? When was it imported and where is it now?" by people who really don't understand. Talked to a really nice guy at Cat, they are doing what they can as far as EPA paperwork for the 3116 in these trucks... My title says 1996 but the engine is a 1993, just my luck, so that isn't evidence of conformity.

 

[Kohburn]

(4) A vehicle is designated a 1974 year model or prior year model.

that could also be an issue

 

[dumptruck]

I would try another town

 

[abh3]

Kohburn: That's because there are no titles at all for pre-1975 vehicles.

Dumptruck: It's not the local office that's the problem, it's the title people in Montgomery, wherever you apply it will be the same deal. I spoke to Mike Gamble, uberboss over titles, and he says this is the law plus it's the non-conforming, non-17-digit VINs that raises the red flags in the first place.

 

[undysworld]

Sounds eerily similar to the crap recently in Wis. Check out the threads under "Politics".

FWIW, most milvehs in Wis are going to be "parade only" registered. That's soon changing to allow at least some milvehs to be used for normal things, but it took work to protect even that privilege.

If you're interested, I can dig up a link to a NHTSA letter of interpretation, wherein it is declared that the us armed forces can sell surplus trucks to the public without needing to bring them into conformity with FMVSS. This does not alter the fact the each us state can determine it's own registration procedures, but it might be enough to persuade some rational-thinking person in the DMV (assuming there is such a person) that they ought to issue registrations.

There's been a fair amount of concern over different states cracking down on milvehs. Check further on the site and check with the guys from Kansas too, who dealt with a similar issue a few years back. I'm sure we're all willing to help and interested in what goes on with you guys.

Paul Underwood

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

Here's the Code of Alabama, #3 is the problem. ...
Refusing certificate....



(3) The vehicle was not manufactured to comply with federal and state statutes, rules, and regulations governing safety, emissions, and antitheft standards in effect at the time of manufacture, and has not subsequently been modified to comply with the standards.
....

.

As I see it (and I am not a lawyer) they are hung by their own words!

In conformity with #3, these vehicles WERE manufactured and DO COMPLY with applicable FEDERAL REGULATIONS in place at the time of manufacture and delivery to the US Military - a bona fide Department of the US Government. They were NOT produced as CIVILIAN vehicles (which comply with a completely DIFFERENT set of applicalbe regulations), but exist in their own right as FORMER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE VEHICLES of BOTH the Federal and State arms of our military (Regular Forces, National Guard (under the Governor of each State), and Reserve Forces). They were inherently CERTIFIED as compliant with those REGULATIONS as indicated by their acceptability by said Department of Defense in fulfillment of a US GOVERNMENT CONTRACT ! ! !

Now, show me how THAT can make them NONCOMPLIANT with ANY of the aforementioned legal requirements !?!?!?!

Any "waivers" were part of the original contract for manufacture and MUST be "grandfathered" as acceptable so long as the vehicle exists.

IMHO

 

[mstrmstr]

I've been checking locally by word of mouth from my people and the BMV.
Titling issues can all be corrected with forms like numerical changes to the title.(adding letters or digits for compliance to the VIN). Note a VIN is a ASSIGNED number. In fact if you get a State police safety inspection and the right forms(eg: cert of manufacture or origin) you can get registration and title for almost anything. The key words to ask are " what do I have to do to be in compliance" and the BMV becomes much more customer friendly.

I read the ruling presented here.. #3 is so full of holes as to be mute.
#4 is probematic as to what the "intent" was and could easily be beat by just titling in another State and just transferring title and registering for license like everyone else.

It may take time and legwork but I believe legal Titling can be done with a workaround. As long as birth and sales documents are in order you should be still golden.

 

[two.fiveM35]

Time to find a buddy in another state and register it there.