Bad News Georgia HMMWV Owners

[infidel got me]

Sorry, I forgot about the c series--- they sold like 4 million of them last year.

 

[swiss]

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.

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infidel got me]

Hummer not Humvee--- sorry my mistake...

 

[Chief_919]

Says "commercial use."

Right there on the paper.

Not "private" use.

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.

 

[Chief_919]

Years gone bye bye bye --- they out o bidness !!

Umm, no. Still very much in business.

http://www.amgeneral.com/news-event...ic-and-international-hmmwv-sales-and-service/

 

[penokeevet]

There's a NEW Sheriff in town., and since all State Highway Depts., must follow the Federal Highway Dept. Safety rules, such as The Manual Of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) ,etc. and said NEW SHERIFF doesn't like too much unnessary (?)government regulation of us American Citizens, there may be an opportunity for the Secretary of Transportation to pursue this with the NEW SHERIFF after they get the numerous rules, regulations etc. that are strangling this nation, taken care of. The States that have Sanctuary Cities will soon witness the size of the Federal Highway Aid club. This club was used by the Feds to get states to comply with the 21 year old drinking regulations. If package properly and presented to the NEW SHERIFF at a later date, may be worth trying. After working at the Federal and Local Govt. levels, this 81 year old F_RT believes there's too much Government at all levels and too many Govt. employees who forgets who they are working for who actually owns the assets (WE THE PEOPLE)

 

[MaverickH1]

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.

And still, they tried to manufacture and sell it as a kit car, which is the only way it can be made into a road legal vehicle now. So which is it, AM General? If you wanted to sell UTVs, you'd market them as UTVs and sell them as such. So why do the C-Series trucks come with DOT approved safety glass? DOT approved lighting. DOT approved EVERYTHING.

I hate that we can't have simple, rugged vehicles in this country. :/

 

[Suprman]

In the grand scheme of things I have seen a lot worse on the road. But there some politics in the mix so who knows. I can tell you that state level lobbyists can get things done that one would not think legislators would do as long as it sounds ok on paper.

 

[Chief_919]

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.

 

[MaverickH1]

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?

 

[swiss]

Have any of you looked up the GA law that I created? I would highly recommend looking this up. The answers are all in the current law. A little research goes a long way.

The Milspec is attached.

Maverick, have you read the NHTSA definition of a motor vehicle? It is pretty clear why it is defined as a motor vehicle

AM General equiped it with DOT approved items because that is what was available in the market. They do not make everything like in the old days of the Model T. They outsource a ton of components

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?

 

[swiss]

Here is the current law in GA for easy reference

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2015/title-40/chapter-2/article-2/section-40-2-27/

2015 Georgia Code
Title 40 - MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
Chapter 2 - REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Article 2 - REGISTRATION AND LICENSING GENERALLY
§ 40-2-27 - Registration of motor vehicles not manufactured to comply with federal emission and safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles; certificate of title; former military motor vehicles

Universal Citation: GA Code § 40-2-27 (2015)
(a) No application shall be accepted and no certificate of registration shall be issued to any motor vehicle which was not manufactured to comply with applicable federal emission standards issued pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. Section 7401 through Section 7642, known as the Clean Air Act, as amended, and applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C.A. Section 30101, et seq., unless and until the United States Customs Service or the United States Department of Transportation has certified that the motor vehicle complies with such applicable federal standards and unless all documents required by the commissioner for processing an application for a certificate of registration or title are printed and filled out in the English language or are accompanied by an English translation.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply to applications for certificates of registration for such motor vehicles that have a manufactured date that is 25 years or older at the time of application. Certification of compliance shall only be required at the time of application for the issuance of the initial Georgia certificate of registration.

(c) Applications for registration of such motor vehicles shall be accompanied by a Georgia certificate of title, proof that an application for a Georgia certificate of title has been properly submitted, or such other information and documentation of ownership as the commissioner shall deem proper.

(d) Before a certificate of registration is issued for an assembled motor vehicle or motorcycle, such assembled motor vehicle or motorcycle shall have been issued a certificate of title in Georgia and shall comply with the provisions of Code Section 40-3-30.1.

(e) The provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply to applications for certificates of registration for former military motor vehicles that are less than 25 years old and manufactured for the United State military

 

[swiss]

Note the following 3 key items

1.) The definition of FMMV, Former Miltary Motor Vehicle is established earlier in the GA state code
2.) Vehicles older than 25 years are exempt
3.) New vehicles that are FMMV are exempt

Simple & effective

 

[Chief_919]

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.

There is no military equivalent to the FMVSS. The military issues a spec for a vehicle based on mission requirements.

 

[swiss]

There is no military equivalent to the FMVSS. The military issues a spec for a vehicle based on mission requirements.

I posted the military equivalent in post 150

 

[Chief_919]

I posted the military equivalent in post 150

I stand corrected.

 

[swiss]

Now if you actually read the Ga law, HMMWV's are allowed, according to law to be registered in the state of Georgia.

If the dmv denied registration then you need legal counsel within Georgia to represent you to show that by law, you can register these vehicles.

I would suggest other members, in other states work to change thier laws.

The template is provided within what I did in Georgia.

Can we stop the bantering please


PS that is not to say that the law wont be changed in the future. That is why it is important that members stay abreast of their laws, and proposed changes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaverickH1]

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.

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".

It's not like the military John Deere Gators have DOT approved tires, turn signals, etc. I've designed a light assembly before (that never made it to market), and the DOT requirements for lighting are met by the HMMWV. And not just the light housing itself, but the location requirements and everything. It's all pretty extensive.

Swiss, thank you for the info, I'll have to look through it. That MIL equivalent of the FMVSS is really quite old, does anyone know what years had revisions and if that ultimately changed the doc number?

 

[swiss]

Mods I would say we close this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hndrsonj]

Mods I would say we close this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is why we never allowed these in the past....