HMMWV Bill in Washington State...Testimony help needed

[cwc]

JEB - please let everyone know how the Senate Transportation Committee hearing goes, especially if there are objections that need to be addressed prior to the Committee vote.

The Wisconsin precedent in accepting MIL-STD-1180B as equivalent to FMVSS is very important. This equivalency is also supported by the correspondence between the NHTSA and AM General regarding the applicability of the notifications and defect remedy provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act. (The commonly cited exemption in 49CFR Subtitle B Chapter V Subpart A 571.7 is an exemption only for the FMVSS provisions in Subpart B, not a complete exemption from all of the provisions of the Act). The NHTSA correspondence is attached below. It is also currently available on the NHTSA website, easily located by searching a string of text.

Also, HMMWVs were actually subject to several recalls under the defect remedy provisions of the Act, with the recalls administered by the NHTSA. An example recall (problems with the neutral safety switch) is attached below also.

View attachment Neutral Safety Switch Recall.pdf

View attachment NHTSA letter to AMG 09FEB1988.pdf

 

[JEB]

CWC

The hearing went fine. The bill was read by a staffer who did a good job summarizing it, and then the Senator who sponsored it tried to discuss it without much luck.
There was one question from a senator...since the bill reads "military vehicles" she wanted to know if it was about tracked vehicles. The staffers said, no, primarily HUMVEES.
Due to a full schedule, I was limited to 90 seconds. I was the only speaker on the bill.
When finished, the chairman asked if I was talking about getting an up-armored HMMWV...I said no, I couldn't afford one. That got laughs.

I stressed the points I made earlier here refuting some of the gross misconceptions held by the WSP staffer I spoke with.
Also, I heard from SEMA, they submitted written testimony.

We'll See what happens. If all else fails...I have a"Plan B".

Thanks four your help.

 

[tage]

If all else fails...I have a"Plan B".

don't give those crooks your money...
Just go to az and get a title like GL.

 

[Seq]

Being a life long Washington resident I'd be surprised if they authorized these "assault vehicles" on the road. They are camo you know! Scary!!

 

[JEB]

Seq...
I'm skeptical myself.
But at the committee hearing they seemed somewhat favorably inclined to remove the state's helmet law!
Now that was just the committee...and I doubt if the King County socialists would ever go for it, but it shows some independent thought goes on In Olympia.

 

[JEB]

An update: the Senator's office told me the bill passed the committee unanimously.

At the last minute a group of WWII vehicle guys complained about the bill staying it's part about allowing HMMWVs to to be registered if safety mods were done, might force them to do the same with their trucks.

 

[CGFFEMT]

Link to Washington Senate for tracking progress: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5417&Year=2019&Initiative=False

 

[Coug]

EDIT: it's not directly about the original topic, but since this is what comes up when I search for titling HMMWV in Washington, this seemed like an appropriate place to add it. If it's too far off topic I apologize, and hope someone will point out to me a better place to put it.


It's been a couple months since this was started, but I thought I'd add what I just found out today.

On March 13th 2019 the DMV sent out a letter/guidance to all of the licensing offices about military vehicles.
Basically, it says either the Form 97 has to say that the vehicle is eligible for on road use, or you have to take in a digital photo the vehicle has a VIN plate that contains a FMVSS statement (which as far as I know OSHKOSH is the only one who did that.)

I'm hoping since mine is supposed to have a clean SF-97 with no "Off Road Only" stamps on it, that it won't be an issue. My luck the licensing office will want it to specifically state "eligible for on road use"

 

[cwc]

The bill status is now Senate Rules "X" file, which mean it is "no longer eligible for consideration". Does anyone know what happened? Was it the issue mentioned above about the WWII vehicle owners being in opposition?

 

[JEB]

I spoke to the Senator, the bill despite passing the first hurdle of the Transportation Committee, stalled.
So that's it for this year. I was given no reason for the action, or lack thereof.

Following up on "Coug" post of 4-17, I called a local licensing office, they had no idea what I was talking about.
I then called the Dept. of Licensing office in Olympia, the customer service worker, which I suspect may just be a robot , had no idea either. She did deviate from her script and suggested I email the department director, which I did.
I asked what they knew about the bill, and more specifically, what Doug mentioned.

I also reiterated that I was looking to just license a 30 year old vehicle as a collector car for limited use and asked "...why are you so intransigent on the issue".
Last time I emailed the director it took them a couple of months to reply, and then with a canned answer.

I hate this state's bureaucracy. Somewhere, I think everyone who cashes a govt. check has forgotten that they work for the people, the population does not exist to serve the state.

 

[JEB]

Washington State reply: No way.

Here's a reply I got from the state HQ...

Basically, they say, if it doesn't have a FMVSS VIN form, they don't want to play.
Period.
I asked if they would consider a vehicle on a case by case basis....short answer "NO". More like Heck, NO!

I pointed out that there are many vehicle groups onthe road t​

without FMVSS...but they don'r seem to see or care about that logic.

I have complete texts of my messages...if anyone wants to read them.

Good afternoon
John,
Thank you for your email.

I can appreciate the difficult spot this information is putting you in
with your vehicle. Unfortunately the laws and policies of Washington state can
make it difficult to prove that a military vehicle is eligible for on-road use.
Below is more information regarding the laws and regulations in Washington.

Please let me know if this information does not answer your questions: The
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), under 49 CFR 571.7, applies federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to “all motor vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment the manufacture of which is completed on or after the
effective date of the standard,” while specifically exempting vehicles
manufactured for and sold directly to the US Armed Forces.However,
Department of Defense Instruction Number 6055.04 (see page 10 of
attached) directs, “vehicles and equipment shall comply with the intent of
those standards as long as compliance does not degrade essential military
characteristics.”

This is not to say that any particular vehicle definitely
complies with FMVSS. Only that they should comply as much as possible without
degrading their military function. On a state level, 49 CFR 571 is implemented in law and rule under RCW
46.37, WAC 204-10-021, and WAC 308-56A-500(16);
which collectively state that vehicles must conform to FMVSS in effect at the
time of their construction to be eligible for on-road use. If they do not
conform, they must be registered as Off-Road Vehicles.Reading these facts together,
under state and federal law vehicles are required to conform with FMVSS to be
eligible for on-road use in Washington. However, vehicles built for the
military are exempt from current FMVSS standards (although some vehicles may
still be conforming) but still need to match FMVSS at the time they are
manufactured.

In addition, please note that the Washington State Patrol does not conduct inspections on any vehicle to
establish safety. The only type of inspection WSP conducts is a VIN
verification. Without the ability to inspect a specific vehicle for safety, we
have no legal way to definitively establish that vehicle conforms with FMVSS.So, to summarize:1.
All vehicles must meet FMVSS to be eligible for on-road use.2.
Decommissioned military vehicles may or may not meet FMVSS.3.
Washington cannot inspect a vehicle to establish whether or not that
specific vehicle meets FMVSS.Given the above, DOL does not
have the legal authority to establish that a specific vehicle has been properly
modified to meet FMVSS. Instead, we must rely on documentation to tell us
whether a model of military vehicle meets FMVSS.For that, we look to 49 CFR 567.4, which requires a vehicle be labeled by
the manufacturer as conforming with FMVSS, if it does so. Based on this provision
of the CFR, it is DOL policy that this label must be present on a military
vehicle in order to establish it as eligible for on-road use.
Thank you,
Tim Davis-Simpson
Liaison Officer 2- Vehicle and Vessel Operations

 

[JEB]

In Respose to the reply I received from the state, I asked more questions.
The DoL rep answered them...
MY QUESTIONS ARE PREFACED WITH THE DOT...
Good afternoon John,

I have answered your questions in the list below. To summarize – what you would like to do would require either for your vehicle to have documentation that it meets FMVSS, or a law change. We cannot accept vehicles on a case-by-case basis. Because we are an agency of the state, we must follow the law.

• If the state legislature passed a law allowing specific vehicles to be considered "collector vehicles", would the DoL accept that?
• Would the DoL actively fight or argue against such a law of it is brought before the legislature?

A bill doing what you describe was brought before the legislature this year, SB 5417. To my knowledge DOL did not testify for or against that bill. I can’t speak for the agency’s stance on future proposed legislation, but if a law were passed, we would certainly follow it.

• Is there any mechanism where the DoL would accept (even on a case by case basis?) the MIL STD 1180B as an equivalent of the FMVSS?

MIL STD 1180B was reviewed prior to DOL establishing its current policy. DOL cannot accept vehicles manufactured under this standard, even on a case by case basis.

• Assuming the FMVSS issue were solved to everyone's satisfaction, would the DOL find another reason not to license the vehicles based on some concern our communications has not addressed?

I am not currently aware of any other obstacles to registering tactical military vehicles outside of FMVSS. However, resolving the FMVSS issue will require legislative action, as Washington currently does not have a legal means to certify vehicles as compliant.

• Similarly, current federal law allows non FMVSS autos to be imported when they reach 25 years of age. Are such vehicles licensed in Washington, if so how?

Federal law only allows the importation and ownership of vehicles which were not manufactured to FMVSS after 25 years. Each state controls their own roads, and eligibility to be registered for on-road use is on a state-by-state basis. However, there are various means to certify a foreign manufactured vehicle as being compliant with FMVSS.

Therefore, some foreign vehicles are eligible to be registered in Washington and others are not. It depends on the make of vehicle, how/when it was brought into the country, and whether the individual vehicle has been certified as being brought into compliance with FMVSS, per 49 U.S.C. § 30141.
• Given non-FMVSS vehicles, (either by age...pre-1968, owner-assembled "kit cars", or vehicles imported under the federal statues mentioned above) ARE licensed for operation on Washington roads, I'd like to see if military vehicles can be given equal consideration.
• If not, why?
The FMVSS only applies to vehicles manufactured after its inception in 1968, and therefore cannot be applied to pre-1968 vehicles. Kit vehicles are covered under RCW 46.37.519, which details the safety requirements, including references to FMVSS. Imported vehicles status varies, as I spoke to above, and do generally need to be certified as complying with safety standards.

In order for tactical military vehicles to eligible for on-road use, it would require an act of the legislature to either provide a process for inspections which would allow them to be certified as compliant or not, or explicitly grant them an exception from FMVSS.

Thank you,

Tim Davis-Simpson
Liaison Officer 2- Vehicle and Vessel Operations

 

[Coug]

Here's a copy of the guidance they put out, available at all the licensing offices. Unfortunately it does say that having a clean form 97 does not equate to being suitable for on road use.

 

[BigJ]

Bit of a late reply but I was wondering something... If they won't register one based on the FMVSS/SF97, would they register it if it had a current title and registration from another state? I have a 1045a2 that has a clear Georgia on road title/registration. If not, I might have to do what a lot of people in this state already do and register in Oregon..

 

[JEB]

No.
The truck I was looking at had an Idaho road title.
I asked the specific question and the Dept. of Liscensing bureaucrat said no.

I asked if we could come to some sort of good faith effort to make everyone happy.
No, he said.

I reminded him we are talking about a few trucks used under the current Collector Car license limitations, and they said No.

And they have the gaul to wonder why some people distrust "big government".

 

[BigJ]

Thanks for the reply. Looks like Oregon it is.

 

[Ajax MD]

Wisconsin allows HMMWVs to register, and for only $25 for lifetime registration. [s.341.266(1)(am)3, Wis. Stats.]
MIL STD 1180B has a chart in it, which specifies that military vehicles have to meet MIL STD equipment standards, AND most importantly, it lists the equivalent FMVSS requirements. This means that military vehicles have to meet the exact same safety equipment requirements as civilian vehicles - only they have a different name.
The MIL STD 1180B has already been accepted by a Wis. Appeal court as proving FMVSS compliance.
Military vehicles are exempted from FMVSS compliance by Title 49 US Code. But being exempted doesn't mean preclude meeting the equivalent standards (MIL STD), they do.

This is exactly the information I need to help squash the MSP's bulletin forbidding safety inspections in Maryland.

 

[Smckerigan]

I’m in Nebraska and never had a problem getting plates for my M998.

 

[undysworld]

This is exactly the information I need to help squash the MSP's bulletin forbidding safety inspections in Maryland.

Ajax,
Glad it helped. That's really why I posted that info. We had a big fight on our hands here with our DMV, and I hoped to help others avoid a similar fight.
Cheers,
Paul

 

[EODsurplus]

I just registered a 1987 M998 from an "off road only" SF97 and received collector plates and a title.