Here are some of facts that everyone should know regarding the M998...especially regarding the questions of how "they" (whomever they may be) can get away with selling/titling/whatever-Federal/local-law-you-might-think-is-being-broken, and a few other important things to remember. Oh, and I apologize ahead of time because this is going to be lengthy...and I apologize to those who think you're going to get help to title your rig...sorry but we can't discuss that here!
To start with, in 1966, the federal government enacted the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), and in doing so, added section 49 CFR 571.7(c) to the Act, which states, “vehicles produced to military specifications are exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards”. The reasoning, per the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is this:
“Although Congress expressed no intent that military vehicles be excluded from the coverage of the Act, the agency determined for reasons of policy that vehicles manufactured pursuant to military specifications should be exempted from conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the authority of the Act. Comments received at the end of 1966 in response to the proposals for the initial standards raised the possibility that compliance in some instances could affect the capability of equipment to fulfill its military mission, and therefore when the standards were adopted, military vehicles were exempted under 49 CFR 571.7(c), but the agency relinquished no other jurisdiction over them.”
So what exactly does this mean?
In simplest terms, it means that Humvees do not have to comply to the federal safety standards, since they were given exclusion from them, and although the Humvee is exempt from the safety standards, the NHTSA makes it clear that Humvees are still governed by all other aspects of the Act, especially the notification and remedy provisions of the Act. For example, under this provision, “...the manufacturer itself [in this case, AM General] has a good faith obligation imposed by the Act to determine the existence of a safety related defect when the facts so indicate, and to effectuate notification and remedy…”
More importantly still, despite the exemption from the FMVSS, and the general misconception, the Humvee does still comply to the federal safety standards, the NHTSA further states:
“…the Department of Defense in apparent recognition that its vehicles are "motor vehicles" has attempted to ensure that they conform with the Federal safety standards to the extent practicable, as evidenced by MIL-STD-1180B…”
To prove as such, the forward to MIL-STD-1180B reads as follows:
"Although vehicles and equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications are specifically exempted from the provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), it is the established policy of the Army to comply with the intent of those standards as long as compliance does not degrade essential military characteristics. With the same limitation, compliance with applicable provisions of (Federal) Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (MCSR) is an Army requirement.
This military standard provides guidance to assure proper safety characteristics associated with FMVSS are designed into military vehicles in a consistent manner."
The NHTSA has also stated the following specifically including the M998: "Because AM General had stated that the vehicles in question are designed to be used 60% of the time on primary and secondary roads, our letter concluded that tactical military vehicles such as the M998 Series 1 1/4 ton truck, the 2 1/2 ton M44 Series, and the 5-ton M809 and M939 Series trucks are "motor vehicles." This is important because the NHTSA explains elsewhere that, "…If we [The NHTSA] conclude that a vehicle is manufactured 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.”
(Make your own conclusions here.)
Next, "..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 military life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS." Essentially this answers the "why" as in "why the DLA sells the as off-road only".
Since the military is not required to bring the vehicles into "conformity", the DLA and/or GovPlanet are not obligated to thoroughly inspect each vehicle and bring them back to par. The "off road only" label applied is merely a 'CYA' for them as some Humvees sold are missing seat belts, brake lights, headlights, turn signals, windshields, have bad tires, etc.
Reasonably speaking, the DLA and/or GovPlanet would need to spend millions of dollars on time, labor, and parts to ensure that each Humvee (or any surplus military vehicle for that matter) was brought back up to par and could safely be driven off the auction lot (although some GovPlamet auction locations do allow this to happen). Even more so, to go through the process of assigning a 17-digit VIN to each vehicle, would be an expensive and time consuming chore. This type of spending though, from a business perspective, would defeat the intent to make money on the sale of surplus military vehicles. In other words, "let the consumer deal with the expense of getting the vehicle back to par”, which would not be any different than that of purchasing a used vehicle (especially from a private sale or auction) in that it is always the buyer’s sole responsibility to ensure that the used vehicle can safely be driven on the road.
The last thing I want to do now is mention AM General's infamous letter (that someone mention) that gets brought up all the d@## time and it annoys me to no end and gven some of the above information from the NHTSA, we have a fact induced rebuttal to AM General's flawed "end-all" letter disproving AM General's specific intention of the letter.
First, AM General contradicts itself in stating that the Humvee was not intended for "use on public roads or highways", as they originally stated otherwise to the NHTSA, the NHTSA reaffirmed AM General's statement, and the NHTSA stated that these were in fact defined as "motor vehicles" based on AM General’s own submitted information. Generally speaking, vehicles spend far less time, off of the public roads either in private parking lots or in driveways. In contrast to the stated use of the Humvee (60% of the time on primary and secondary roads) my Jeep Wrangler, during the course of a normal work week, is actually on a public highway or road at the very most two total hours a day (less than 10% on the road). In order to even be close to spending 60% of the time on public roads or highways, I would need to spend 14.4 hours a day driving on the road. Even considering that AM General meant over the life of the vehicle, the case would not be any different.
Next, the letter states that "AM General further opposes any use of these military vehicles by individuals or entities outside of the military context for which the vehicles were designed."
Since it has been established that the Humvee was designed for on- and off-road use for the military, what exactly do they mean by "outside the context for which it was designed"? As most enthusiasts know, but very few others do, the M998 Humvee was not intended for direct combat use, but rather designed primarily for personnel and light cargo transport. By this intention, I see no major difference between how the the military used the M998, and how I use my mine (or how others will use theirs) - other than I take much better care of mine.
Another important point to make regarding AM General's letter, is that at the time this letter was written, the civilian version of the Humvee, the Hummer (later branded as the "H1") was being produced. The allowance of the Humvee to be titled and registered at that time would have put AM General in competition with themselves and would have taken away sales from the more expensive civilian Hummer by introducing the same, less expensive alternative ($100k+ vs. $40k) into the market. AM General, of course, does not mention this in their letter.
Lastly, AM General states that “This vehicle does not comply with all FMVSS requirements for commercial automobiles...was not intended for commercial use on public roads or highways…” As already found, the Humvee does conform to nearly all FMVSS requirements, and further still, (and I believe I shouldn’t have to state this) but most owners are not attempting to use their Humvee as a commercial vehicle, but rather for private use. Per the definition, a commercial vehicle is any type of motor vehicle used for transporting goods or paid passengers..*sigh. end rant*
Lastly, to give the best reason possible for so much discrepency in titling despite how they are sold by GovPlanet, it is because it is ultimately up to each individual state how and why they will/ will not title these. Plain and simple. No other reason.
