infidel got me
Well-known member
- 1,679
- 32
- 48
- Location
- Newberry, Florida
Sorry, I forgot about the c series--- they sold like 4 million of them last year.
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
So al hit it on the head how we got the law changed in ga. The point is now you have to get the law to allow these to be registered. It is an involved process and not for the light hearted. This also has to be done state by state.Chief is right about the letter being a big hurdle. The only way of approaching that is to address the the vehicle fits the exemption in the 49 CFR 571.7(c) because it was built to the contract specifications of the military. Then that grants the vehicle the exemption from FMVSS. If the interpretation I posted earlier (from the NHSTA website) still holds true, then that vehicle is exempt when transferred to private hands regardless of what the manufacture claims. Unless they are claiming it wasn't built to the contract standards for the military in the first place. Another point of discussion for this would be items that were built with the tag "For US Government Use Only" but then were sold to the public. Many shipping containers and boxes have that designation on it. The original manufacturing company can issue their opinion and use that opinion to try and influence regulation, but it is not a legal document to prevent private or commercial use of those vehicles.
Yeah, what they mean was any use on the commercial market, be it private use or anything else. If you want to call AM Generals legal counsel and ask they will clarify it for you. They have in the past for many people, including state DMV officials.Says "commercial use."
Right there on the paper.
Not "private" use.
Umm, no. Still very much in business.Years gone bye bye bye --- they out o bidness !!
There is designed for road use from strictly an engineering standpoint, saying that the mission meant the vehicle would be used 60% of the time on the road so was designed for that. That means it will perform as the specs say.So they admit to the NHTSA that it was designed for 60% road use, and then declare it's not designed for road use. In my opinion, they are just trying to cover themselves because there are some inherent design flaws in these vehicles. Such as the spindle lock nut.
There is designed for road use from strictly an engineering standpoint, saying that the mission meant the vehicle would be used 60% of the time on the road so was designed for that. That means it will perform as the specs say.
Then there is designed for road use from a legal and regulatory standpoint in the legal jurisdiction where it will be operated. That means it meets the legal requirements to be used on the road and is a whole different thing.
The military HMMWV is the former, but not the latter.
Then why did the NHTSA define it legally as a "motor vehicle"? Why did AM General equip it with DOT approved equipment? The reason is likely legal and regulatory.
What is the MIL equivalent of the FMVSS that it was required to meet?
I have a forklift with headlights that are marked DOT approved. Why? Because there are a lot of parts that are DOT compliant already on the market that manufacturers use. Just because someone puts some DOT compliant parts doesn't mean it was done for the purposes of compliance, it could have been that the part met what they wanted for spec and price and happened to also be DOT compliant because it was used in other applications. You are really grasping at straws and seeing motives that are not there in that arguement.Then why did the NHTSA define it legally as a "motor vehicle"? Why did AM General equip it with DOT approved equipment? The reason is likely legal and regulatory.
What is the MIL equivalent of the FMVSS that it was required to meet?
I posted the military equivalent in post 150There is no military equivalent to the FMVSS. The military issues a spec for a vehicle based on mission requirements.
I stand corrected.I posted the military equivalent in post 150
I'm not really "grasping" at anything, I'm just seeing an irregular fact pattern. And yes, some things will say "DOT" on them when they are already commercially available. But (and this might be a stretch) for something like the M/T tire designed and developed (I assume exclusively) for the HMMWV, it was increased cost to get the DOT approval. The only reason for the DOT approval of that tire would be for use on main roads. Potentially, that DOT approval requirement for that type of equipment could be why AM General was trying to argue with the NHTSA that the HMMWV was not a "motor vehicle".I have a forklift with headlights that are marked DOT approved. Why? Because there are a lot of parts that are DOT compliant already on the market that manufacturers use. Just because someone puts some DOT compliant parts doesn't mean it was done for the purposes of compliance, it could have been that the part met what they wanted for spec and price and happened to also be DOT compliant because it was used in other applications. You are really grasping at straws and seeing motives that are not there in that arguement.
There is no military equivalent to the FMVSS. The military issues a spec for a vehicle based on mission requirements.
This is why we never allowed these in the past....Mods I would say we close this thread
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website like our supporting vendors. Their ads help keep Steel Soldiers going. Please consider disabling your ad blockers for the site. Thanks!