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

[wreckerman893]

I'm not flipping yet.

This may be much ado about nothing.

None of my deuces have a title.

Any vehicle built before 1976 can be registered and tagged with just a bill of sale.

If fact, you can not get a title on a vehicle that old unless you already have a title.

We also have no official inspection stations so I'm not sure where said inspections would be conducted.

I'll check this out and see which way the wind is blowing.

If all else fails my Congressman, Mike Rodgers, is a good guy and has helped myself and other veterans on many issues.

Stand by for further developments.

 

[datsunaholic]

Part of the problem is he's trying to register a 1996 M35A3. So it has a FL title, and said title says it's a '96, meaning he has to have a AL title. But since it doesn't meet DOT and EPA standards, he can't get one.

The EPA standards might be worked around- if the original EPA sticker is still on the engine. The DOT standards, whole other ball of wax. It's the same issue trying to bring a non-compliant foreign-spec car into the States, and in fact that's what the statute is trying to prevent anyway. Some States were havens for gray-market cars, and a lot of those States changed their laws to stop the practice. There is a huge disconnect between Federal and State laws, and between the different Federal regulations. That's why nothing is consistent even though the Federal laws have been on the books for decades.

 

[Nonotagain]

All is probably not lost in good ole Bama.

I borrowed this pic from one of the auctions.

AM General states that the vehicle meets all applicaible Federal safety standards at the time of manufacture.

I would wager that your M-35A3 has a label just like this.

 

[BBELL]

Go get a DOT inspection done usually cost $45-$75 then see what they say. Just make sure all lights work since thats what they usually look for. Then I don't see how they could deny you. I had no questions down here in December with my A2. If i can help anyway I am a CDL driver and will help figure out something just pm me.

Brian

 

[wreckerman893]

Part of the problem is he's trying to register a 1996 M35A3.

That is one of the reasons I avoid A3's like a bad stomach virus.

As long as the vehicle met the standards in the year of manufacture we will prob be ok.

That is why you can still get antique vehicles without seatbelts, turn signals, etc., registered and tagged here.

 

[123mack]

I contacted the Dixie Division president to see if he had heard anything, since he is also a county comissioner of his home county. He hadn't, but said he would check with a contact in the state revenue dept. Stay tuned.

 

[Westex]

I'm going to sure tune in, even though I'm in Texas, to sweet home Alabama.

 

[CatMan]

The Wisconsin Historic Military Vehicle Preservation law AB592 / WI Act 135 that we spent the last two years working thru the legislature includes specific language that allows ALL former US built military wheeled vehicles with no requirement to be a certain year. To prevent restriction like Alabama is now seeking to enforce, In WI we specificly crafted the new HMV law to include newer MV's like the M35A3's. You can register an M35A3 in Wisconsin starting October 1, 2010

Before you all throw rocks at the issue in Wisconsin, I would encourage you to read the entire law. The situation is indeed very similar in Wisconsin and now in Alabama. Both states started down the same path.

There are generally two ways to register and operate a former military vehicle in most states. One is to register it as a truck with an a higher annual type registration and operate it with out restrictions on what when and how you can drive and haul. More and more states are starting to crack down on this type of use.

The second is to register it under your states "Historic, collector, vintage, preservation type law. Most states have a similar approach. With the historic preservation type registration, use is restricted to historc type displays, parades, etc. Read your state law. the restrictions are in there. You generally can't haul much. But in exchange, the registration fee is very low and often a one time fee.

More and more states are seeing increasing applications for Grey Market vehicles and they are starting to view former military vehicles with a more criticle eye.

If you are specificly involved in the Alabama situation and want addition information on what we learned here in WI, PM me. I'm no lawyer but I sure have learned to listen and talk like one in the last 3 years.

Cat Man
Green Bay WI

 

[jrou111]

All 5 of my deuces were/are registered in Shelby County, AL with 16 digit VIN's starting with M35A20000XXXXXXX with X representing one of the numbers on the data plate. They were all registered as 1971 Jeeps with antique tags. They handed me back the GL Florida titles because titles are not needed for vehicles that old in AL.

I think previous posters are correct in saying that our MV's are compliant the Federal and State requirements.

Of course technically your A3 was made from an A2 so you could say it was a 1971 and it'd be a lot easier to register!

 

[mckeeranger]

Of course technically your A3 was made from an A2 so you could say it was a 1971 and it'd be a lot easier to register!

Does the A3 still have the A2 serial number on the frame, or do they remove them during the rebuild?

 

[MyothersanM1]

This is the kind of nonsense I expect out of California. BUT, so far, so good.

My truck is tagged and plated "Historical". And, yes, as a matter of fact, I am (always) on the way to a car show/reenactment. If one person looks at it at Home Depot I would consider that "a car show". Whatever materials are in the bed are in support of said car show/reenactment. Just be crafty how you word things.

The only issue I have is the need for a CDL due to three axles over 6000lbs gross and GVWR over 26001lbs.

I hope things get ironed out down there because I wouldn't want it to spread out west. They say CA sets all the precedents. I'm very surprised they haven't touched this one.

 

[abh3]

Yes, the issue is the 1996 date of manufacture and the VIN on the dataplate, pre-'75 and they wouldn't care, proper VIN and they wouldn't care, over 20 years old and they might not care. However, I'm not prepared to try the 'backdoor' route of using a frame serial # or changing dataplates, mainly because it's a felony in Alabama to misrepresent anything on a title application but also because I hate liars, this truck is what it is and I'm blessed with determination, my ex would call it pig-headedness! I could tag it in Fl but that would require my getting a FL DL, doable but it opens a whole 'nother can of worms re. other vehicles, insurance, AL income tax issues, etc. not to mention the just being honest part of it all, at the end of the day, regardless of how things go, I can say at least I did the right thing...

As far as other comments go:
-It can't be 'antique tagged' as it's not an antique.
-There are plenty of truck, farm and other tags in Bama but we can't get there until it's titled in the first place.
-Yes, I've written my State Reps about this already!
-A DOT inspection won't provide the written Certificate of Compliance or Waiver they demand, neither will an Annual Inspection (I'm CDL)
-Can't find any DOT sticker as on the M916 in the picture
-It's a difficult proposition to argue #3 is met by the truck meeting the Army's requirements and standards as evidenced by their acceptance. The Al Dept of Revenue has interpreted what the legislature meant by "comply with federal and state statutes, rules, and regulations governing safety, emissions, and antitheft standards in effect at the time of manufacture" and that's that, anyone familiar with government will recognize you may as well argue with a wall as fight that battle.

Sooo, we are working on EPA and DOT through proper channels, more as it shakes out. If/when I get this stuff I'll be sure to post it somewhere, I've never had much luck posting in the tech section, tried that with the A3 repair manual the other day but it didn't work. We'll see!

 

[saddamsnightmare]

May 6th, 2010.

Ye old "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree" comes home to rest yet again! First Wisconsin, then Kansas, now Alabama........ The bureaucrats are making legistlation by the way they interpret the legislation, only the Courts and the Legislature have that power! Now we are gonna get to see the MVPA likely roll over and protect the parade and trailer queens again, just like they did in Wisconsin.
I suggest we consider forming a holding company in Texas, set up by the members in states that need the flexibility, to purchase the vehicles of those members and then lease them back as registered and insured in Texas. Said members would own shares of stock equivalent to the current value of their trucks, and they would pay a leasing fee equivalent to the title and tag charges per year. The states involved cannot enforce their local regulations on vehicles titled in and leased from a corporation in another state.....! Ever wonder why almost every U-Haul's plated from AZ? The railroad companies do this all the time, they may operate in one state, but they lease their vehicles from a company in a state with more favorable tax or operational/inspection requirements....... This would be a legitimate way to put the screws to non compliant states....

Besides, ALL DoD vehicles were built to FEDERAL specifications by contract, an any exemptions as to air pollution and safety laws goes right back to the original owners exemption.... It is NOW time to reassume our rights as tax paying citizens, go for the representatives, senators and LAWYERS..... my friends, the rights you save may just be your own.

 

[jrou111]

So is this just a problem with M35A3's then?

 

[Parker2]

I wouldnt think that saying the a3 is a pre 1975 truck is lying. It was altered in the '90's but wasnt most of it built prior to '75. I would guess at least 80% of it is a2.
My truck is a '66 but it was depot rebuilt in the '80's. Does that make it an 80's model - NO.

 

[abh3]

Just spoke with Mr. **** Merritt, Import and Certification Division, NHTSA and it is the NHTSA's postion that there is NO Certificate of Conformity with DOT standards for ANY military vehicle and NO such thing as a waiver for ANYTHING.

In a nutshell, any military vehicle must comply with safety standards for the year of manufacture or it is ILLEGAL to operate upon public roads in the United States. Additionally, the '25 year old exemption' from DOT standards is for IMPORTED vehicles only, NOT U.S. built vehicles; you can import and run a 25 year old Tatra no problem but a 1985 Deuce is ILLEGAL to operate on the highway no matter how you cut it... He even went as far as to suggest what GL is doing, selling these trucks to us with a title, is illegal as they are ALL OFF-ROAD VEHICLES and will NEVER be legal for on-road use. It was his opinion that some states ignore Federal rules and others are much more strict, hence it's not an issue coast to coast, but he gets regular calls from people caught in this trap...

Just makes your blood boil, doesn't it!?

 

[ABN173]

Yes, the issue is the 1996 date of manufacture and the VIN on the dataplate, pre-'75 and they wouldn't care, proper VIN and they wouldn't care, over 20 years old and they might not care. However, I'm not prepared to try the 'backdoor' route of using a frame serial # or changing dataplates, mainly because it's a felony in Alabama to misrepresent anything on a title application but also because I hate liars, this truck is what it is and I'm blessed with determination, my ex would call it pig-headedness! I could tag it in Fl but that would require my getting a FL DL, doable but it opens a whole 'nother can of worms re. other vehicles, insurance, AL income tax issues, etc. not to mention the just being honest part of it all, at the end of the day, regardless of how things go, I can say at least I did the right thing...

As far as other comments go:
-It can't be 'antique tagged' as it's not an antique.
-There are plenty of truck, farm and other tags in Bama but we can't get there until it's titled in the first place.
-Yes, I've written my State Reps about this already!
-A DOT inspection won't provide the written Certificate of Compliance or Waiver they demand, neither will an Annual Inspection (I'm CDL)
-Can't find any DOT sticker as on the M916 in the picture
-It's a difficult proposition to argue #3 is met by the truck meeting the Army's requirements and standards as evidenced by their acceptance. The Al Dept of Revenue has interpreted what the legislature meant by "comply with federal and state statutes, rules, and regulations governing safety, emissions, and antitheft standards in effect at the time of manufacture" and that's that, anyone familiar with government will recognize you may as well argue with a wall as fight that battle.

Sooo, we are working on EPA and DOT through proper channels, more as it shakes out. If/when I get this stuff I'll be sure to post it somewhere, I've never had much luck posting in the tech section, tried that with the A3 repair manual the other day but it didn't work. We'll see!

I respect your integrity sir, but I still think you would still be correct if you decided to argue the point since a M35A3 is just a refurbed Deuce. It is an antique despite it being upgraded in 96. Who knows what action your vehicle has seen in its previous life. (I bet CARNAC could find out for you from the frame number.)

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in this matter, and please keep us posted.

-Dale

 

[ABN173]

Just spoke with Mr. **** Merritt, Import and Certification Division, NHTSA and it is the NHTSA's postion that there is NO Certificate of Conformity with DOT standards for ANY military vehicle and NO such thing as a waiver for ANYTHING.

In a nutshell, any military vehicle must comply with safety standards for the year of manufacture or it is ILLEGAL to operate upon public roads in the United States. Additionally, the '25 year old exemption' from DOT standards is for IMPORTED vehicles only, NOT U.S. built vehicles; you can import and run a 25 year old Tatra no problem but a 1985 Deuce is ILLEGAL to operate on the highway no matter how you cut it... He even went as far as to suggest what GL is doing, selling these trucks to us with a title, is illegal as they are ALL OFF-ROAD VEHICLES and will NEVER be legal for on-road use. It was his opinion that some states ignore Federal rules and others are much more strict, hence it's not an issue coast to coast, but he gets regular calls from people caught in this trap...

Just makes your blood boil, doesn't it!?

I don't know about that, I am still active duty and we adhere to DOT and state rules. The only vehicle we can't drive on the highways of Washington are our uparmored vehicles (due to roll-over hazzard). Older soft skinned HMMWV's, LMTV's, M35A3's, 5tons, wreckers, etc are fine. Just because we are are the army does not give us a license to perform illegal acts, which accord to your information it would be. Our vehicles were designed for urban environments too, not just off-road as your contact is suggesting.

Anyway my two cents....

 

[123mack]

I think this Merritt guy you talked to is full of it. He's painting a lot of vehicles withn a broad brush, for example, an 880 Dodge or a CUCV is a civvy truck with green paint and fewer aminities than its civilian counterpart.

 

[stumps]

It depends more than a little bit on what amenities the 880 Dodges, or CUCV's are missing. For instance, if it is missing the applicable pollution equipment for the date of manufacture, it won't get past DOT. Likewise, if it needed passive restraint, and it had manual seat belts... (remember those abortions that were on the '80's cars and trucks?) no DOT. Or, if it is missing the sound deadening material, and the cab is too loud, no DOT. Padded dash? It has to have the right amount of padding...

-Chuck