Wisconsin allegedly cancelling Military vehicle titles.

[undysworld]

He is MOST DEFINITELY INCORRECT.

I just sent an email to John Varden MVPA about it.

WisDOT is attempting to introduce legislation "sometime in '09, hopefully" to address this. In the meantime, the owners of Pinzgauers are OFF THE ROAD.

Please look up http://www.wisconsin-pinzgauers.org/

Right now, the site is closed to the public, you must join to see what's there.
Tell Tom that Paul refered you, and you'll get in.
The site will go public in a few days, and we'll lay out our argument - why we have been wronged, the legal reasons behind our case, some suggestions for resolving the issue, and ways for the public to speak their minds.

This issue is FAR from being resolved.

Thank you ALL for your support. Any questions? Call or write me. I'm happy to discuss it.

Determinedly,
Paul Underwood
608 437-3465

ps: this is what we presented to WisDOT at the last meeting. Sorry it's so long:



STEYR-PUCH PINZGAUERS AND WISCONSIN



The operating privileges for Wisconsin owners of Steyr-Puch Pinzgauers were cancelled by WisDOT, effective September 25, 2007. We, the owners, believe this action was unwarranted and that their policy has been unfairly applied. Described by the press as "the most expensive four-wheeler in the world" and a "hand-made, low-production, high quality item", (Q) the Pinzgauer merits reconsideration. Most of the sources quoted are on-line, and the site is referenced if available.


The specific reason/s for WisDOT's action has been unclear, both in conversation and writing. The following are reasons which have been offered by WisDOT as an explanation for the cancelation of Pinzgauer owner's operating privileges, followed by the (source):

manufactured in Switzerland to be used as a military vehicle, isn't manufactured for road use, doesn't meet the requirements (A)
NON-ROADWORTHY, NOT FOR HWY. USE (B)
manufactured for off-highway use, didn't have vehicle identification numbers marking them as safe for highway use (C)
vehicles that are manufactured outside of the United States and are more than 25 years old that do not meet the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Standards (D)
unless the vehicle meets the provisions of s114 of the national traffic and motor vehicle safety act of 1966, post 1968 foreign cars and trucks (E)(M)



We have offered several factors to support our claim that Steyr-Puch Pinzgauers should be allowed to operate legally in Wisconsin. The following are our reasons for believing WisDOT's information is incorrect and their actions were unjustified:

WisDOT is wrong. The Pinzgauer was actually built in Graz, Austria by the Steyr-Daimler-Puch works for both military and civilian markets. (G)(L)(N)(P)(Q)
Pinzgauers are currently accepted for legal on-road use in every other U.S. state, as well as Canada, UK, Germany, Austria, Australia, etc....
The Pinzgauer is suitable for use on-road. It is equipped with directional and hazard lights, a horn, high- and low-beam headlamps, a high-speed transfer case allowing speeds of over 65 mph, and tires rated for road speeds. (G)(L)(N)(P)(Q) The Pinzgauer can "hum along the highway at 70 mph". (Q) "Low range is used for off road driving while the normal or high range is used for both on and off road operation". (Q) "The total weight of the largest Pinzgauer was limited by design "to permit driving by holders of normal passenger car driving licenses". (G) The Pinzgauer is considered a motor vehicle by NHTSA. (L)
The Pinzgauer, like any foreign imported motor vehicle which is over 25 years old at the time of importation, is essentially exempted from FMVSS safety standards. (I)(J)(K)
WisDOT listed four ways for a foreign imported vehicle to qualify to operate on WI roads. (E) The fact that these trucks were imported by licensed dealers and accepted by NHTSA would suggest that the "vehicle meets NHTSA". (I)(L) And while NHTSA does not list the Pinzgauer as "substantially similar with another similar conforming model", the military version is virtually identical to the DOT approved civilian model in Colorado.
NHTSA affirmed their previous conclusion that the civilian Pinzgauer is a motor vehicle, both in the 4-wheeled and the 6-wheeled versions, and provides the five factors they considered in making their decision. While this letter is specific to the civilian version, the military version of the Pinzgauer apparently also meets these five factors. (L)
The Pinzgauer satisfies the provisions of the WI Statute 341.10(6). The Pinzgauer is not a "vehicle (which) is originally designed and manufactured for off-highway operation", but was instead determined to be a motor vehicle based on NHTSA's five factors. It also meets the provisions of The Highway Safety Act inasmuch as Title 49 U.S. Code Subtitle VI Part A Chapter 301 Subchapter II Section 30112 specifies that the prohibition on importing non-complying motor vehicles is nonapplicable since the motor vehicle was at least 25 years old when imported. A nonapplicable prohibition means that it's OK. (K)(L)(M)
WisDOT allows neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) to be operated on public roads with posted speeds of 35 mph. WisDOT allows "a local retailer" to build them. NEVs are required to have headlights, brake lights, front and rear turn signals, side and rearview mirrors, reflex reflectors, a parking brake, a safety glass windshield, three-point seat belts, and a VIN number in order to be considered street legal. (O) Except for the reflex reflectors, safety glass windshield, and a VIN number, these items were all standard features for Pinzgauers. Unlike NEVs, Pinzgauers also were equipped with defrosters, roll bars, and offered four- or six-wheel drive, similar to some of the safety features of modern vehicles. Furthermore, Pinzgauers were built by Steyr-Daimler-Puch, one of Europe's largest truck manufacturers, instead of being assembled by a "local retailer".



We believe that WisDOT is not administering their policy evenhandedly and the result is unfair. Consider the following observations:

WisDOT admits that their application of current regulation is far from uniform. (E) We agree.
The "NON-ROADWORTHY" brandings on the new titles effectively make it impossible to sell the truck for road use, despite a lack of evidence to support this branding. (B)
WisDOT considers Pinzgauers, Unimogs, and Land Rovers to be non-conforming. (E) Yet it seems that only Pinzgauer owners have lost their operating privileges so far. A Mercedes Benz Unimog, license plate #13149, still has a license plate and was observed driving on Williamson Street in Madison at 11:25am on Friday, February 22.
The Pinzgauer, like every domestic-built Historic Military Vehicle, foreign imported vehicle, and kit-car built since 1968, lacks the FMVSS label. They may or may not meet the equipment requirements. Why haven't these vehicles' operating privileges also been cancelled?
Apparently, other previously registered non-compliant vehicles (including domestic-built Historic Military Vehicles, foreign imported civilian vehicles, and kit-cars) built since 1968 were "grandfathered", as they have been allowed to retain their operating privileges. Certainly the number of these vehicles is far greater than the 29 Pinzgauers which WisDOT claims to have revoked the operating privileges of. (C) So if virtually every non-compliant vehicle built since 1968 can still operate, why are Pinzgauers the only vehicle actually affected by this "policy"?
Pinzgauers licensed in other states can still operate legally on Wisconsin roads, yet taxpaying citizens cannot do so. That is not fair to Wisconsin citizens. How is WisDOT going to honor the reciprocity agreements with other states?
"The Pinzgauer purchaser will be the guy who really needs four-wheel drive a lot", in applications such as "oil exploration, lumbering, pipeline work, remote resorts, and the megabuck agribusiness". (R) For many rural Wisconsinites, a four-wheel drive truck is a necessity. Most of us use them for jobs which no other vehicle is capable of performing. "Off-road it's spectacular". (R)
WisDOT has proposed legislation to limit the uses to which Pinzgauers can be put. (E) Despite claims of misuse of Collector plates, (E) non-roadworthiness, and being unsafe, (B)(C) WisDOT has not provided any evidence to suggest that Pinzgauer usage needs to be limited or halted. Pinzgauers should be required to carry licenses which are appropriate for the use of the truck. ie. Farm plates for farmers, Collector plates for parade trucks, Light Truck plates for personal utility functions. The owner should choose and purchase the license based on their intended use, just like other motor vehicles.
Expecting Pinzgauer owners to await a possible solution "hopefully" sometime in 2009, while other non-conforming vehicles are allowed to continue to operate is not fair. If non-conforming Pinzgauers cannot operate, then all non-conforming vehicles' operating privileges should be cancelled until a solution is reached. Similarly, if some non-conforming vehicles are allowed to continue operating while this issue is sorted out, then all non-conforming vehicles (including Pinzgauers) should be allowed to continue operating. The WisDOT policy should be fair and evenhanded.



In short, it seems that WisDOT is trying to enforce Federal laws which were set up for vehicles less than 25 years old on our Pinzgauers.

Unless WisDOT has evidence to the contrary, it is safe to assume that all Pinzgauers in the U.S. were legally imported under the scrutiny of the U.S. DOT and NHTSA and according to U.S. law. (F)(H)(I)(J)(K)(L)(M) They were not exempted from FMVSS standards through a "loophole" in the law. They were imported legally for highway operation.
A fair solution might include immediate reinstatement of Pinzgauer owner's original title, license plate, and operating privileges. Owners who intend to license their trucks for daily use, ie. Farm or Light Truck plates would likely agree to a reasonable list of modifications (ie. DOT tail and reverse lamps, safety-glass windshield, and side reflectors or lamps) which would be required and inspected by WisDOT. Many Pinzgauers were modified to these standards at the time of importation. Pinzgauer owners are interested in safety too. We will support a reasonable, fair solution.


Sources cited in the above statement:
(A) WisDOT letter dated 9/25/07 announcing the cancelation of our titles and license plates.
(B) Corrected Title Sample (#072680568012-9) issued 9/25/07 with brandings.
(C) Wisconsin State Journal article "State law may take historic military vehicles off the road" 11/08/07.
(D) WisDOT letter dated 1/12/08.
(E) WisDOT / HMV Meeting Notes G503 Web Site www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=101394&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135
(F) Original Title #02171A4019-7 dated 6/27/02.
(G) Automobile Revue - Reprint from Swiss Army publication 25-1971 provides a detailed mechanical description of Pinzgauers. www.t2k.com/pinz/id16.htm
(H) Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 USC Chapter 4). www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/GrantMan/HTML/07_Sect402Leg23USC_Chap4.html
(I) NHTSA List of Nonconforming motor vehicles that are eligible for importation. (page 1 only) www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/elig010807.pdf
(J) U.S. DOT for HS-7. www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/hs799short.pdf
(K) Title 49 U.S. Code Subtitle VI Part A Chapter 301 Subchapter II Section 30112. frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+49USC30112
(L) NHTSA letter of interpretation d:12/14/90 by Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice to Roger C. Fairchild, Esq. //isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/2788y.html
(M) Wisconsin Statute 341.10(6). http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0341.pdf
(N) Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer operating instructions.
(O) Mount Horeb Mail article "Despite opportunities, NEV use sparse in Mount Horeb" 11/29/07
(P) Pinzgauer Of America sales brochure, circa 1979 http://www.goatwerks.com/images/Flash for site/3_PinzAmerica.pdf
(Q) Four Wheeler magazine article "Puch-Pinzgauer" August 1978
(R) Car and Driver magazine article "Pinzgauer!" July 1978
(S) Military Vehicles Magazine advertisement October 2007

 

[undysworld]

oops

 

[undysworld]

oops

 

[undysworld]

sorry, trying to delete extra postings

 

[m376x6]

The Wisconsin Reich

Thank God I don't live in Wisconsin, apparently where semi educated government employees at a whims notice stomp on anyones rights and with smug indifference. I see quite a few Pinz's here in Colorado, but we also suffer from idiot government employees who at a whim create bu$$&#it policies and rules. Dealing with our(nationwide) various forms of government is like trying to get an elephant off of you after it has already died. And to imagine all this, simply because a low level government employee wants the recognition and attention. Good luck to you folks in Wisconsin, you need to get rid of some dead weight wanna be politicians taking up your taxes.

Regards,
M376X6

 

[davidkroberts]

I had a similar title problem with my Gama Goat. It was purchased in Alabama which does not title vehicles prior to 1975. My 1970 Gama Goat was bought from a private collector on a legal Bill of Sale. All i had to do was go to the Tennessee Court Clerk with the bill of sale and a copy of the website from alabama saying they do not issue titles on that vehicle. I had a new title in hand in two weeks.

As for the revoking of street legal status, i think a well placed call to a representative is in order. I mean a polite well placed call with an endoresement or two from a few VFW chapters and or veterans organizations would be in order.

 

[hawk78]

Any updates on this? I just got interested in MV's and was looking at M35's.

 

[undysworld]

Hello Again. Paul Underwood here, the first Pinzgauer owner to log in here, months back! My truck is still garaged. But I've been busy fighting the good fight.
Last month, I & Dave Arndt were on 2 local news broadcasts with our trucks talking about this crap. The day before, I was in the local newspaper, Isthmus. Today, I had a Telephone Prehearing Conference with an Administrative Law Judge from the Wis. Dept. of Administration, Division of Hearings and Appeals. It's the first step towards an appeal hearing in July.

The DOT is standing on a dubious interpretation of Wis Stat 341.10(6) to threaten ALL noncomplying vehicles (vehicles without FMVSS certification labels), like US surplus military vehicles, kit cars, and EVEN PRE-1968 VEHICLES!! (Remember, they already rescinded registration for our Pinzgauers - ex-Swiss army light trucks)

341.10 Grounds for refusing registration. The department shall refuse registration of a vehicle under any of the following circumstances:
6) The vehicle is originally designed and manufactured for off-highway operation unless the vehicle meets the provisions of s. 114 of the national traffic and motor vehicle safety act of 1966, as amended, except as otherwise authorized by the statutes.

Wisconsin says this means that ANY VEHICLE that does not have a LABEL certifying compliance with FMVSS requirements is an "off-highway" vehicle. Bear in mind that 'definitions' are found in Section 340 of our statutes, not 341. Does this interpretation make sense to anyone? Anyone?

I say that 341.10(6) was intended to keep lawn mowers and such from being licensed. Read what the WisDOT Transportation Code reads:

(3) REGISTRATION. As provided in s. 341.10 (6), Stats., no
vehicle originally designed and manufactured for off−highway
use may be registered by the department unless it bears the label
required by section 114 of the national traffic and motor vehicle
safety act of 1966, as amended. The label shall be affixed by the
original manufacturer and shall certify that at the time of manufac-
ture the vehicle met all applicable federal motor vehicle safety
standards. Vehicles generally not eligible to be registered include,
but are not limited to, mini−bikes, go−carts and all−terrain vehicles.

See what I mean? It's obviously NOT a definition.
I'm fighting it. I'm arguing that NO SANE READING OF THAT STATUTE WOULD GIVE YOU THE DOT's INTERPRETATION.
If that interpretation gets thrown out of court, then all the noncomplying (exUS military) are NO LONGER threatened. WisDOT can't do anything without 341.10(6).

Here's what I need to fight this in court: I need to be able to establish a LONGSTANDING Wisconsin practice of registering noncomplying (no labels) vehicles. At a minimum, proof of longstanding registration, like an old title. Even better, a title that reads, "Ex-Military" or "Previously owned by US military". Obviously, there are steps that need to be taken to protect the owner's anonymity.

If there are any WISCONSIN ex-military vehicle (or kit-car) owners who are interested in learning more OR might be willing to help, please call, write, or pm me. I won't ask you to do anything you don't feel comfortable doing. Thanks for reading this.

Paul Underwood
1736 Barber Road
Blue Mounds, WI 53517
(60 437-3465

or try my cell phone, and ignore the anti social recorded message (60 333-8383 It IS ok to leave a message.

 

[devilman96]

Paul,

If I am reading this correctly that includes any vehicle made prior to 1966... Im also interested in this part... "except as otherwise authorized by the statutes."

Part of your discovery on this case needs to be done at the DMV it's self. If you are handling this case yourself you should be granted access to their data base and should be able to search at random to find hundreds of examples starting with MV's... The judge will probably have to grant this to you, but... keep in mind if your case is going south at any time stop everything and request access and time in order to do the discovery!!!!

Also... With in the FMVSS's own regulations, it clearly states that imported motor vehicles over 25 years of age do not require FMVSS approval to be registered in the US.

It's good to see you guys fighting this!!!!

 

[undysworld]

My evidence was submitted July 1. My Appeal hearing is scheduled for July 14.

I have a letter from Frank Busalacchi, Secy. WisDOT, defending DMV's decision to refuse registration of a 1943 US Army Willys Jeep. He says it's because 1) the vehicle was mfgd for military use, and 2) it doesn't meet FMVSS.

Obviously, NO FMVSS requirements apply to vehicles which were built 25 YEARS before the FMVSS standards were enacted.

There is no Wis. Statute which bans ex-military vehicles.

In 2003, WisDOT/DMV refused registration of a 1970 Leyland Mini, imported from Canada. DMV agreed to register the Mini finally after an appeal was filed.

This is an inquisition.

 

[undysworld]

Hi All,

Underwood here again. My appeals hearing was last Monday (14th), and my closing argument was delivered to the judge yesterday.

The hearing ran over 8 hrs. The DOT is very determined. There were several other Pinzgauer owners present, and while I was obviously preoccupied, they were able to talk occasionally with DOT employees.

The Wis DOT has some very definite plans to implement their regulation of ALL CONCOMPLYING vehicles (without a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards label). That includes every U.S. surplus ex-military vehicle.

They believe that military vehicles are manufactured to "shoddy standards", and are basically unsafe to operate on-road. (That attitude is not only ignorant, but insulting.)

They intend to restrict all ex-military vehicles from any ordinary use, allowing only limited parade and car show operation.

They even mentioned that the famous Wisconsin Ducks (WWII DUKW's used for tour rides) would no longer be licensed. That would be up to a local ordinance to approve.

They've introduced a formal rulemaking: Trans 123. To read the listing in the Wisconsin Administrative Register (pgs. 2 & 15), go here:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/register/reg629b.pdf

Wis DOT is applying a statute which bans "off-highway" vehicles, unless they meet FMVSS requirements, to ALL NONCOMPLYING VEHICLES - Like yours. Read it, it's 341.10(6). Here's a link:
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=341.10

Current Wisconsin Statutes neither define nor ban ex-Military vehicles.
They also DO NOT require FMVSS compliance as a requirement for registration of on-road vehicles.
Only if/when Wis DOT can make this new rule change will they have such authority.

I'm not recommending driving around a death-trap here. But every other U.S. State's DOT has managed to figure out how to title and register ex-military vehicles for ordinary use on their highways. The reciprocity laws even allow out-of-state owners to drive in Wisconsin. Come on Wis DOT.

This country was founded on the ideals of protecting it's citizen's rights, not on taking them away. Americans didn't accept a governmental agency acting "just because we can" back then, and there's no reason to do so now.

Check into this and educate yourselves so we can protect our rights! If the law needs to be changed, then that is the responsibility of our Wisconsin elected officials, not the DOT.

 

[Michael]

Underwood here again. My appeals hearing was last Monday (14th), and my closing argument was delivered to the judge yesterday.

Have you not heard anything yet? Or did you get put off?

 

[undysworld]

Underwood here again.

Michael, I did not get put off, but neither do I have an answer yet. The matter is still under deliberation by the Judge. I do have some news however.

A second Wisconsin Pinzgauer owner has initiated an appeal hearing over this matter. His prehearing telephone conference was held last week. The DOT immediately sought to have the appeal dismissed on the grounds of it not being "timely". He successfully argued that the "timeliness" aspect of the hearing was meant to allow time to prevent an agency from taking some undesired action. In his case (and all Wis. Pinzgauers), DMV acted prior to any notification being made. So he was never given the opportunity to appeal the action before the action was taken. His appeal was NOT dismissed.

During the conference, the DOT apparently conceded that they would re-register ALL Wisconsin Pinzgauers IF I prevail in my hearing. Previously, they intended to force each Pinzgauer owner to fight this individually. They were asked to provide this agreement in writing, and agreed. I do not know if it has been received yet.

Essentially, the next hearing has been tabled, pending the outcome of my appeal hearing. If I prevail, the next hearing will not be held. If I lose, they will then proceed with the next hearing.

When asked about when the decision (in my hearing) would be made, the judge indicated that his preliminary decision would likely be made between the middle to end of August. At that time, we will have 15 days to reply, prior to his issuing a final decision. After that, the DOT can appeal if they lose. (!) Whatever. A couple Pinz owners have already received offers of free legal assistance. I guess if we need to keep fighting, we will.

Yesterday I read the latest volumes of the Wisconsin Administrative Register (see previous post) for any progress of DOT's proposed rulemaking. I have found no additional listings yet.

As far as the specifics from my hearing, I am delaying posting them until the conclusion of the appeal.

Here are a couple things to consider:

Last October, WisDOT Secretary Frank Busalacchi wrote a letter to Wis. Sen. Mike Ellis, defending DMV's refusal to register a 1943 US Jeep because it was "designed for military use" and "does not meet federal safety standards". This Jeep was built A QUARTER CENTURY before those standards took effect (196!!!!

Last November, WisDOT/DMV supervisor Linda Lewis was cited in the Wisconsin State Journal as stating that "there are likely thousands of historic military vehicles registered in the state". Wisconsin has no state statute which bans the registration of ex-military vehicles. But that doesn't stop the WisDOT. They just claim that Wisconsin DOT/DMV has never knowingly registered ex-military vehicles. How many thousands of Wisconsin ex-military vehicle owners believe that?

The WisDOT and perhaps many others might think I'm just p'd off and ranting like Chicken Little. I admit to being less than pleased. But my truck is already banned, and I'm in the middle of a court fight to fix that. I'm writing to YOU, who haven't yet been effected by WisDOT. It's up to you guys to help fight this, before your trucks get yanked off the road too.

Paul

 

[Michael]

I think everyone in Wisconsin with anything older than 1968 needs to be paying close attention because they could be next. Keep up the fight and keep us posted. If this kind of thinking isn't nipped in the bud it could spread to other states.

 

[undysworld]

Michael,

That's exactly what I've been preachin'.

There's something called UCOTA - Uniform Certificate of Title Act, recommended by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law. Here's where I found it:

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/library/research/docs/finalreports/dmvreport.pdf

WisDOT featured prominently, and hosted the conference last October. It's all about establishing uniform licensing laws between the various states.

Something smells wrong, in that all other 49 U.S. states (besides Wis.), allow the registration of our Pinzgauers. If WisDOT is committed to uniforimity of vehicle registrations, why is WisDOT the only DOT to cancel our registrations? It COULD be that Wisconsin is just today's test-bed for outlawing all historic military vehicles as well as all pre-1968 vehicles. If not outlawing, certainly severly limiting their use.

As I wrote earlier, my truck is already pulled off the road. I'm in court over it. Everbody needs to act now to prevent any of this crap from spreading. Don't wait until you're in my shoes!

I'll be writing more.

Paul

 

[hobie237]

I find this whole situation disconcerting and ridiculous. Best of luck.

Edit: What I find most ridiculous is that it doesn't jive with the whole "no ex post facto law" concept in the federal and most state constitutions (no idea specifically about Wisconsin). I could understand a regulation that prohibits *new* titling/registrations, but typically existing titles/registrations should still be honored as-is.

 

[reitenger]

Subscribing to the thread.

 

[emmado22]

So whats the MVPA doing about this? Have they offered help?

 

[DanMartin]

The MVPA should be all over this...offering help with legal assistance and coordination of efforts. There should be full-page announcements about this completely unacceptable situation in every issue of Supply Line and Army Motors, and taking out ads in Military Vehicles magazine.

Why there isn't a huge and very public uproar from the MVPA puzzles me to this day.

 

[emmado22]

For all the "vote for change, we're going to improve the hobby" stuff from the last election, you figure this would be a great big chance to step up to the plate and show they were serious... But as far as I know, they have been silent......... Anyone know anything that I dont???