Honesty!!?? They don't care about that, they care about satisfying their computer. I had a replica 1903 Oldsmobile that was manufactured in 1958 and they had titles. Their name was Surrey. Getting a bonded title they said there is no such car as Surrey and I couldn't convince them otherwise. They said, not in the computer, no title. I waited a few months and tried again. This time I told them it was a 1903 Oldsmobile and I got a title, no questions ask. Now being honest I couldn't get a title for the Surrey. I lied and told them it was a 1903 Oldsmobile and got one. Both times they didn't care if I was telling the truth or not. All they was interested in, is the computer happy.
-
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
Fun's Over in Bama, State Requires EPA/DOT Certificates of Conforminty
- Thread starter abh3
- Start date
- 1,825
- 80
- 48
- Location
- West Tennessee
Mr. Merritt is pretty far up in the food chain at NHTSA (enough so I am surprised that he took the call on this). People that far up the food chain have a lot of clout, and I would suggest that anyone contacting him have a very thorough, polite, and well thought out strategy.......it would not be wise for MV owners nationwide for anyone to make an enemy that far up the line - in fact, at this juncture it is probably not wise for anyone to have any further contact with Mr. Merritt.
HOWEVER, it is the state of Alabama who has refused to register the M35A3, therefore, I'd suggest confining your queries and discussions with the state administrators and lawmakers. NHTSA cannot force Alabama to issue a registration - even if they were so inclined, Alabama, after all, being a sovereign state. But having a NHTSA chief side against you sure wouldn't help your cause.
I'll do a bit of poking around on this and see what can be learned (in between bailing buckets of water).
Best wishes,
David Doyle
abh3
New member
- 236
- 3
- 0
- Location
- Florala, Al
ldj1002: Yeah, I could lie but there's a potential downside, a 'material false statement' about title issues is a Class C Felony... I've got enough to worry about without getting in a bind with the bureaucrats up in some big building in Montgomery.
ABN173: The NHTSA guy's point was that the military (and USPS, go figure) procure vehicles that do not conform to DOT and EPA standards but the fact that they operate them on public roads performing their respective missions does not exempt subsequent private owners from these regulations. The military buys all kinds of stuff that is problematic in private hands, can't be used for it's original purpose, etc... As far as using the chassis number, that may be the way to go in the end, to try to stand on the idea that the A3 was rebuilt (just as the ESP tag says!) and NOT remanufactured thus becoming a 'new' vehicle in '96. The probem then is proving what year it actually is, the A3 dataplate and chassis number are the same, 500xxx. I've seen a bunch of Deuce numbers and that's a new one on me...
123mack: The M880 and CUCV fly under the radar as they have 17 digit VINs that fit the stupid computer system, no red flags, no suspicion you are trying to register one of these Jap mini trucks or a golfcart, THOSE are what this crap is all about, the change in the Code, etc...
ABN173: The NHTSA guy's point was that the military (and USPS, go figure) procure vehicles that do not conform to DOT and EPA standards but the fact that they operate them on public roads performing their respective missions does not exempt subsequent private owners from these regulations. The military buys all kinds of stuff that is problematic in private hands, can't be used for it's original purpose, etc... As far as using the chassis number, that may be the way to go in the end, to try to stand on the idea that the A3 was rebuilt (just as the ESP tag says!) and NOT remanufactured thus becoming a 'new' vehicle in '96. The probem then is proving what year it actually is, the A3 dataplate and chassis number are the same, 500xxx. I've seen a bunch of Deuce numbers and that's a new one on me...
123mack: The M880 and CUCV fly under the radar as they have 17 digit VINs that fit the stupid computer system, no red flags, no suspicion you are trying to register one of these Jap mini trucks or a golfcart, THOSE are what this crap is all about, the change in the Code, etc...
123mack
Member
- 861
- 11
- 18
- Location
- Jemison, AL
I agree with David. Nothing good can come from stirringng the pot with the federal alphabet soup agencies.
abh3
New member
- 236
- 3
- 0
- Location
- Florala, Al
ddoyle: Mr. Merritt and I had a nice, civil conversation. He's a bright, funny and busy guy who related some interesting things that have happened over the years auto/regulation-wise and explained there was nothing that could be done on his level, this is either an Alabama legislature thing to change AL Code or a U.S. Congress thing to exempt ALL privately owned MVs from EPA/DOT regulation. After all, Congress did just that so Bill Gates could have a Porsche 959! He expressed interest in the fact the A3 has some obvious DOT heavy truck features and an EPA compliant engine. It's not that he's hostile, he just has to interpet and apply the law as written... The problem is poorly written law in the State of Alabama (and other states as well), not the NHTSA.
ldj1002: Yeah, I could lie but there's a potential downside, a 'material false statement' about title issues is a Class C Felony... I've got enough to worry about without getting in a bind with the bureaucrats up in some big building in Montgomery.
abh3, good point and I do understand your concerns.
It did "T" me off when they wouldn't issue a title when I was doing everything right. You know, it "T"ed me off again when they issued a title. However I just smiled and kept my mouth shut.
abh3, good point and I do understand your concerns.
It did "T" me off when they wouldn't issue a title when I was doing everything right. You know, it "T"ed me off again when they issued a title. However I just smiled and kept my mouth shut.
Green_gator
New member
- 760
- 1
- 0
- Location
- Tampa, Fl
If you do not have your heart set on the A3 I would think seriously about selling it and getting an A2 model that is dated prior to needing titles and avoid the issue. I believe that it is always advisable to stay polite and have well thought out conversations with any of the folks who can make and interpret the rules. I am amazed at the folks who scream and insult a deputy when they are pulled over, not sure what good they think it will accomplish. The Alabama gang may want to start looking for a friendly legislator and get some similar rules enacted like we have here in Florida. My concern is that sooner or later they will start requiring more from the insurance and the companies will decide that it is not enough of a market to deal with the regulation.
Hawkshaw
New member
- 25
- 0
- 0
- Location
- North Alabama
Sounds like I need to hurry and register my 1970 A2 before anything starts brewing.
deuceinaround
New member
- 19
- 0
- 0
- Location
- Walnut Grove, Alabama
Just got mine in March,tag'ed an ready to go with no problems,guess I was just in time 
.
.
saddamsnightmare
Well-known member
- 3,618
- 80
- 48
- Location
- Abilene, Texas
May 7th, 2010.
Stumps & Co.:
THE CUCV's were built to military exemption on the clean air act and other applicable FHSA rules, the application was as a MILITARY vehicle. The FEDERAL government has the right to exempt themselves and their appliances from meeting safety and operations standards other entities would have to meet.... BUT if the DoD Inspectors accepted the vehicles at time of build as meeting their CONTRACT specifications, then the exemptions go right back to the original purchaser's contract specifications...... The vehicles MUST be grandfathered as it would be economically impossible to upgrade all of them to current standards. Hence the M151 fiasco in the 1970's......
I am not a lawyer, but I was trained as one, and the Federal government does have the powers to exempt themselves from their own regulations in specific instances and cases.... Time to get Congress to pass a special bill exempting Military surplused vehicles that HAVE historicaslly been operated on the roads in transport to be exempted from FHSA,EPA, and DOT regulations.....
NOW is the time to legally curb this insanity before they take away YOUR property rights and the monies YOU have invested in the equipment.... What's a deuce worth if you can't drive it anywhere but in your backyard, or you have to trailer it to an off road site????
Just my Two Cents worth, as food for your thoughts.....
Stumps & Co.:
THE CUCV's were built to military exemption on the clean air act and other applicable FHSA rules, the application was as a MILITARY vehicle. The FEDERAL government has the right to exempt themselves and their appliances from meeting safety and operations standards other entities would have to meet.... BUT if the DoD Inspectors accepted the vehicles at time of build as meeting their CONTRACT specifications, then the exemptions go right back to the original purchaser's contract specifications...... The vehicles MUST be grandfathered as it would be economically impossible to upgrade all of them to current standards. Hence the M151 fiasco in the 1970's......
I am not a lawyer, but I was trained as one, and the Federal government does have the powers to exempt themselves from their own regulations in specific instances and cases.... Time to get Congress to pass a special bill exempting Military surplused vehicles that HAVE historicaslly been operated on the roads in transport to be exempted from FHSA,EPA, and DOT regulations.....
NOW is the time to legally curb this insanity before they take away YOUR property rights and the monies YOU have invested in the equipment.... What's a deuce worth if you can't drive it anywhere but in your backyard, or you have to trailer it to an off road site????
Just my Two Cents worth, as food for your thoughts.....
Last edited:
abh3
New member
- 236
- 3
- 0
- Location
- Florala, Al
General DDoyle may have saved the day, he got me pointed at Federal Code for NHTSA regs 49 CFR 571.7(c) which reads:
"c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications."
Additionally, Gen. DDoyle turned me on to TO: John M. Tolliday -- President, Dayman USA Inc. (Bedford, VA) , FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA , a Letter of Interpretation where the NHTSA again says there were no standards and any restrictions (like 'off road only' wording) placed on the vehicle by the seller (US Govt.) would not bind the buyer or subsequent owners.
I've passed all this on to AL Dept Rev with the argument that if there were no Federal standars for these vehicles at manufacture then there were no "...standards in effect at the time of manufacture..." (Code of AL) to require the vehicle to conform to now. Plus, the 'no standards or restrictions' pass on to subseqent owners according to NHTSA. This is being handed on to the legal dept. of course, it could take some time for an interpretation of State Code to be revised, blah, blah, blah... Cross your finger, say a prayer, kill a chicken, whatever, maybe they will see things differently soon.
Green_Gator: I've got 8 or so A2s around here, to make one like an A3 will cost almost what I paid for the A3 in the first place. I really like this truck and am determined to make the State of Alabama behave.
saddamsnightmare: You are right, without a Federal exemption we are all subject to capricious 'interpretations' of state codes across the country. Almost everyone I've spoken to has admitted this AL law was targeting people tagging Jap mini-trucks, utility vehilces, etc. and wasn't about our hobby. But then they shrug their shoulders and say what's done by the legislature has to be undone by the legislature. The solution is the US Congress, all it would take is one line item in any bill continuing the exemption of US military road vehicles from these standards after they are sold by the government. Then states couldn't split hairs about exempt when the army bought it, exempt when the army operated it but NOT exempt when they sell it...
Deucingaround & hawkshaw: I think the old trucks that are pre- titles in 'bama are fine, my problem is a 1996 truck with a six digit VIN!!
"c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications."
Additionally, Gen. DDoyle turned me on to TO: John M. Tolliday -- President, Dayman USA Inc. (Bedford, VA) , FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA , a Letter of Interpretation where the NHTSA again says there were no standards and any restrictions (like 'off road only' wording) placed on the vehicle by the seller (US Govt.) would not bind the buyer or subsequent owners.
I've passed all this on to AL Dept Rev with the argument that if there were no Federal standars for these vehicles at manufacture then there were no "...standards in effect at the time of manufacture..." (Code of AL) to require the vehicle to conform to now. Plus, the 'no standards or restrictions' pass on to subseqent owners according to NHTSA. This is being handed on to the legal dept. of course, it could take some time for an interpretation of State Code to be revised, blah, blah, blah... Cross your finger, say a prayer, kill a chicken, whatever, maybe they will see things differently soon.
Green_Gator: I've got 8 or so A2s around here, to make one like an A3 will cost almost what I paid for the A3 in the first place. I really like this truck and am determined to make the State of Alabama behave.
saddamsnightmare: You are right, without a Federal exemption we are all subject to capricious 'interpretations' of state codes across the country. Almost everyone I've spoken to has admitted this AL law was targeting people tagging Jap mini-trucks, utility vehilces, etc. and wasn't about our hobby. But then they shrug their shoulders and say what's done by the legislature has to be undone by the legislature. The solution is the US Congress, all it would take is one line item in any bill continuing the exemption of US military road vehicles from these standards after they are sold by the government. Then states couldn't split hairs about exempt when the army bought it, exempt when the army operated it but NOT exempt when they sell it...
Deucingaround & hawkshaw: I think the old trucks that are pre- titles in 'bama are fine, my problem is a 1996 truck with a six digit VIN!!
abh3
New member
- 236
- 3
- 0
- Location
- Florala, Al
WHEWWW! Just took a call from NHTSA's George Stevens, I'd left a message when all this got started. Tried to explain what the situation was and all he could say was that I'm not the Army, that the exemption is ONLY for the Army and ALL these trucks are to be sold with "OFF ROAD USE ONLY" on the titles! I tried to get a few words in edgewise, something to the effect that the Federal Code doesn't provide for the exemption to expire upon the sale of the vehicle, that it applies to vehicles "...manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces..." & not "owned by the Armed Forces..." and the State Code specifically requires meeting standards "...in effect at the time of manufacture..."
Here we have one of the not so good guys, he doesn't seem to be interested in the letter of the law, only his take on it.
Here we have one of the not so good guys, he doesn't seem to be interested in the letter of the law, only his take on it.
- 8,527
- 2,730
- 113
- Location
- Monrovia, Ca.
I just re read this whole mess. You can be "pig headded" if you want, but, if it were me, I'd go buy a fresh dataplate, get with Carnac and find out the ORIGINAL build date, have it stamped and try again.
Just because you take the auto trans out of your '69 Chevelle and convert it to a 4 speed in 1990, does not make it a 1990 year model vehicle.
If you change engines, Ca. law anyway, says you can't go backwards in year/emissions, it needs to stay the same or be newer. That it EXACTLY what has been done here. It is STILL the early truck that has been repowered with a newer emissions engine.
It wouldn't be falsifying anything, it would be putting the CORRECT info back on the vehicle.
Just because you take the auto trans out of your '69 Chevelle and convert it to a 4 speed in 1990, does not make it a 1990 year model vehicle.
If you change engines, Ca. law anyway, says you can't go backwards in year/emissions, it needs to stay the same or be newer. That it EXACTLY what has been done here. It is STILL the early truck that has been repowered with a newer emissions engine.
It wouldn't be falsifying anything, it would be putting the CORRECT info back on the vehicle.
saddamsnightmare
Well-known member
- 3,618
- 80
- 48
- Location
- Abilene, Texas
May 8th, 2010.
Gents:
I have also had the chance to examine a 1971 and 1974 Ford COE fire truck here in Paris, and they have steel dashboards, no safety padding anywhere on the cab surfaces, no safety equipment beyond seatbelts, they do not carry FHTSA decals anywhere on the cab posts, and they most certainly don't meet EPA standards in any modern sense. Almost all of our 1968-1974 White Construcktor dump trucks were in the same boat, and they were highway licensed...... About the only thing they could get you on (in Pittsburgh, Pa) was heavy stack exhaust, and they would ticket for smoke (I wonder what Pittsburgh does for deuces today?)! We should get our heads togather, so to speak, and see if we can get a group of Congressmen or Senators to pass a private bill (ala Bill Gates Porsche) to exempt sold military vehicles of all types from FHTSA and EPA regulations, using David Doyle's noted exemption above. The ONLY way to beat the bureaucrats is to enshire the precedent in law, then they are stuck.....
I'm on board with little money, but two vehicles to lose if it goes the wrong way in my next state of residence.....
Gents:
I have also had the chance to examine a 1971 and 1974 Ford COE fire truck here in Paris, and they have steel dashboards, no safety padding anywhere on the cab surfaces, no safety equipment beyond seatbelts, they do not carry FHTSA decals anywhere on the cab posts, and they most certainly don't meet EPA standards in any modern sense. Almost all of our 1968-1974 White Construcktor dump trucks were in the same boat, and they were highway licensed...... About the only thing they could get you on (in Pittsburgh, Pa) was heavy stack exhaust, and they would ticket for smoke (I wonder what Pittsburgh does for deuces today?)! We should get our heads togather, so to speak, and see if we can get a group of Congressmen or Senators to pass a private bill (ala Bill Gates Porsche) to exempt sold military vehicles of all types from FHTSA and EPA regulations, using David Doyle's noted exemption above. The ONLY way to beat the bureaucrats is to enshire the precedent in law, then they are stuck.....
I'm on board with little money, but two vehicles to lose if it goes the wrong way in my next state of residence.....
lonegunman
New member
- 298
- 3
- 0
- Location
- Eastern, Washington
I missed five pages of chatter but I can tell you for certain that a good running A3 will pass any emissions test for 1993 trucks no problem. In Washington they max emissions is 40% opacity for diesels, mine was 8%.
When I went to the DOT website and registered, again no problems. Since it is not a commerical truck no DOT numbers were required you just had to provide them with information for their records.
Cigarjoe
New member
- 171
- 2
- 0
- Location
- Greenwood, IN
This is exactly right. The model year for this truck is the oreganal year it was made not the year it was rebuilt. I f that was the case my 43 Mercury would be a registered as a 04. You could also look at it this way. The VIN is legally the vehicle not the body or whats in the body. Just like a gun, the receiver is the gun not any other part of it. Even if you change the body like in my kit car it was a 89 Mustang but I took that body off and put a Cobra body on it. So it is registered as a 89 Mustang 65 Cobra, because the VIN was moved over to another body, but that VIN is still a Mustang no matter what body its hanging on. If you ask my AM General and or the government broke the law when they rebuilt these and decided to change the VIN and model year.
- 18,540
- 5,835
- 113
NO ! ! ! Tell me it isn't so ! The Goobermint NEVER breaks any laws !!!!!
.
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
Ronin Warrior
New member
- 26
- 0
- 0
- Location
- Puyallup/Washington
This whole episode makes me warm and fuzzy, NOT!!!!
How did we ( THE GREATEST NATION IN HISTORY), get god's Special Ed crew making all these screwy laws. There is not a single Gov. agency in operation that agrees or works simpatico with the others. Now we throw in the interpretation factor and all you get at the DMV is " DANGER WILL ROBINSON-DANGER WILL ROBINSON"!!
I just registered my new 1971 M35 and got into an immediate debate with the clerk at the DMV. Fortunately the only hoop I had to jump through was a certified scale weight ticket. The truck is plated as a historical vehicle just as it was in CA prior to my purchase. Cost $288 for life. Sooner or later I expect some one to come up with a way to screw all of us MV enthusiast up here to, but not yet.
A number of years ago I was forced to sell my Unimog in CO because of these same type of issues. At some point it just gets cost prohibitive to continue the battle. Since I am driving mine every day I've made plans for upgrades & improvements to avoid law enforcement interest. I'm from the south and I'm very sorry & embarrased for your trouble.
It's really sad that good tax paying American citizens have to deal with this ******!! A great number of us being veterans and/or still active duty (gods bless you) and we have a hard time finding a good deuce to buy, yet a harder time in some cases with the red tape of operation.
Funny that it's OK for the government to send 400 rebuilt repainted and dolled up deuces to the Afs recently, as a good will gift at our expense. I'm not a smart man, as Forest wood say, but I thought those trucks belonged to us
deadhorse:
Maybe this is why I retired?
Sorry for the soap box! If you want to register your truck at my house your more than welcome
How did we ( THE GREATEST NATION IN HISTORY), get god's Special Ed crew making all these screwy laws. There is not a single Gov. agency in operation that agrees or works simpatico with the others. Now we throw in the interpretation factor and all you get at the DMV is " DANGER WILL ROBINSON-DANGER WILL ROBINSON"!!
I just registered my new 1971 M35 and got into an immediate debate with the clerk at the DMV. Fortunately the only hoop I had to jump through was a certified scale weight ticket. The truck is plated as a historical vehicle just as it was in CA prior to my purchase. Cost $288 for life. Sooner or later I expect some one to come up with a way to screw all of us MV enthusiast up here to, but not yet.
A number of years ago I was forced to sell my Unimog in CO because of these same type of issues. At some point it just gets cost prohibitive to continue the battle. Since I am driving mine every day I've made plans for upgrades & improvements to avoid law enforcement interest. I'm from the south and I'm very sorry & embarrased for your trouble.
It's really sad that good tax paying American citizens have to deal with this ******!! A great number of us being veterans and/or still active duty (gods bless you) and we have a hard time finding a good deuce to buy, yet a harder time in some cases with the red tape of operation.
Funny that it's OK for the government to send 400 rebuilt repainted and dolled up deuces to the Afs recently, as a good will gift at our expense. I'm not a smart man, as Forest wood say, but I thought those trucks belonged to us
deadhorse:Maybe this is why I retired?
Sorry for the soap box! If you want to register your truck at my house your more than welcome
Last edited:
paulfarber
New member
- 1,081
- 20
- 0
- Location
- Gordon, PA
I think this part of the NHTSA is pretty black and white:
Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful military life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS
So this letter seems to clear it up. Only catch would be if they determine that an M35A[23] is not a motor vehicle, as defined.
Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful military life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS
So this letter seems to clear it up. Only catch would be if they determine that an M35A[23] is not a motor vehicle, as defined.