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

[Oilleaker1]

The sun is starting to shine! On May 5th, Wisconsin passed senate bill 392 which allows Deuces to be licensed as collector vehicles and with no load restrictions. You can't drive it in January blah blah, but---------I'd copy it and push for the same idea in Alabama with your state legislators! Get them a copy ASAP! It will show them what could be done there to stop the problem. I'm in SD and we don't have it here yet------but if I see it coming , I'll do the same as you should do! Scream, yell, and give them the idea. If another state got around the problem, so can Alabama. So can any others with the same red tape hangups! Hope you can get this done! It will help with the precedence for all of us. John ( this info. is posted on G503.com under legislative issues)

 

[smoothnu]

You might have to go threw the EPA/DOT but there is no obligation on your part to conform to any of the smog related laws of today. As long as it is still factory and is able to meet the laws in which it was built. For example in 1965 seat belts were not required ( it may have been 64 and back) any ways if it was born without seat belts you can't be given a ticket. Now you might run across some dumb a$$ cop that doesn't know any better or doesn't care one, but getting the ticket thrown out shouldn't be a problem. Other than the inconvenience of going to the court house.

 

[clinto]

Before anyone contacts their legislators, it would be a good idea to get a group together, decide on a plan and ONE plan and then move forward.

If 5 or 20 different people start contacting their legislators, it will be melee and we'll either make a bigger problem for ourselves than we already have or we'll have a bunch of pissed off legislators whose phones and emails are getting blown up.

Has anyone talked to the Dixie Division MVPA to see if they have contacts in the State govt.?

 

[123mack]

The Dixie Division has been looking at the FL and TX laws regarding MVs. Couldn't get anything started this past legislative session as the legislature was all balled up with electronic bingo. This thing has become such a mess that they just did get the state budget passed. This years legislative session is over, so any MV bill will have to wait till next year. Just to show how bad things are, there were some legislators wired for sound by the FBI, and evidence is presently being presented to a federal grand jury. So yes a MV bill is being worked on for presetation, but the face of the state legislature may be very different, depending on who is indicted an convicted. As I stated in a previous post, stay tuned.
In relation to this, anyone in AL who owns a MV should join the Dixie Division. Steel Soldiers is a good cyber club, but the more names on the roster the better when a bill is actually presented.

 

[alphadeltaromeo]

Hopefully the nonsense in AL doesn't spill over to the other Southern States. Clint's correct...it's better to think carefully about how to best move forward, rather than getting all ticked off and spout at the mouth.

 

[cldh35611]

This doesn't effect trucks that are older than 1975 right? I haven't had any problems in my county yet. The last pre 1975 truck I registered was about two months ago.

 

[123mack]

Correct. No title for older than 75. Bill of sale only.

 

[Nonotagain]

Once this whole mess gets straightened out, I have a way for this career bureaucrat to have to do some serious jumping.

Inquire when he is going to require salvage or for off road use only titles for all law enforcement vehicles that have or had a spot light installed in the windshield pillar.

Once the integrity of the pillar has been compromised with drilling a hole, the roof structure no longer meets DOT standards for roll over protection.

You can't just pick what DOT regulations you wish to enforce.

They should be required to either replace the pillar or sell the vehicle as not suitable for road use.

I can also play this game as I do read up on federal regulations from time to time and make comment on them (mostly aviation related).

 

[buddy_holly]

What's that noise? Do I hear the not too distant sounds of the Federal scrapper machine crunching deuces?

-Chuck

They ever come for my rig, theyre gonna have some issues. Thank God for now AZ is pretty chill when it comes to trucks and guns. It seems our governor wants to tick a bunch of people off lately, but the Deuce is safe from restrictions here. I was wanting to get outta the heat for school but it seems like goobermints everywhere are trying there hardest to mess with as many of us as possible . Maybe I should just hunker down here and put an AC in the rig if possible. If registering your baby here would help/is doable, I'll do what I can.

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

Once this whole mess gets straightened out, I have a way for this career bureaucrat to have to do some serious jumping.

Inquire when he is going to require salvage or for off road use only titles for all law enforcement vehicles that have or had a spot light installed in the windshield pillar.

Once the integrity of the pillar has been compromised with drilling a hole, the roof structure no longer meets DOT standards for roll over protection.

You can't just pick what DOT regulations you wish to enforce.

They should be required to either replace the pillar or sell the vehicle as not suitable for road use.

I can also play this game as I do read up on federal regulations from time to time and make comment on them (mostly aviation related).

While part of me would like to say: TOUCHE' (as I swing my sword.) The realitiy of this approach would be that your woud validate the bureaucrat's scope of authority in limiting future use of ANY vehicle.

DO NOT EMPOWER THEM ANY FURTHER - It would be like FEEDING the BEAST

 

[jollyroger]

Thankfully the MVCC here in CO has been working on legislation to protect our abilities to own and title MV's.

I use mine on the farm so they are titled like work trucks and registered as farm trucks. It is funny how the DMV cycles through their restrictions.

There was a time when getting a farm plate was easy as the predominant activity was farming in my county. Then the Western 1/4 of the county became urban and the issuance of farm plates became a hassle as the county seat was in the urban section.

Suddenly you needed a farm tax return. Then the truck had to be titled to you personally and not the "farm" business. Then the truck had to be titled to the farm business and not you personally. Then the farm tax return had to be a part of your personal tax return and not a business tax return. Then you had to provide a schedule F tax form and fill out a form agreeing to certain "restrictions" with respect to operating the farm vehicle. Then they would not issue plates that said "farm" on the plate. They would issue you a car plate and register that number as a farm plate. Now I merely tell them I fill out a schedule F tax form, sign their restrictions form and I get plates that say farm on them. Go figure.

Also they are issuing so many farm plates that I register trucks six months apart and I got consecutive numbers. I went in the next week to register my M-37 and got a plate one number away from the last ones because they actually issued one to someone else......Those farm plates are just flying out the door. I guess that's why they need to be so restrictive with them.

 

[wreckerman893]

ABH3 and all others........I stopped by the Cherokee County DMV today and asked my source about the issue you raised on page one of this thread.

She looked in her book of changes and updates and found NO NEW REGULATIONS concerning the registration of military vehicles built before 1975. NONE, NADA!!!

If your local office is giving you a hard time it may be due to the remanufature date on your A3. As I stated before this is just one reason I have never considered owning one.

I am not ragging on you for your purchase but we all know how crap happens when bureacrats get their nose into areas they have only a passing knowlege about.

If you got an SF 97 from GL it should have had a Florida title with it. That is what I got with my 1983 M915.

I took my Paid Invoice and the GL title to my local DMV to get my tag. The young lady came out and inspected the data plate and VIN and filled out the paperwork to get my AL title. I tagged it with a Farm Tag for around 50 bucks.

The title arrived a few weeks later and when I sold the truck to Brandon (AMGeneral) I signed it over to him. I assume he was able to get tagged and titled in NC since he has not reported any issues to me.

I hope you can get this resolved and get your truck legal and on the road.

 

[AMGeneral]

Yep,no issues with the titling or insurance WM,I recived the title a week or so ago,and got it insured today(for a hefty sum,it has 1 million dollars worth of libality coverage now).But since I run transporter tags,I'm getting the run around from the state of NC right now.

 

[pittdog]

Run it through the bilding !

 

[bratpackdad]

You got California in my Alabama...

1973 M35A2 W/O winch

 

[Csm Davis]

Don't pass a new law, use the ones on the books the laws are not the problem the nut misusing them is. print out the laws that reinforce your point and take them to the man in person if that doesn't work sue him and the dept. he works for and get the court to show him the right way to read the law.

 

[abh3]

Struggling with posting for some reason but

CRISIS OVER!

MANY THANKS DDOYLE, COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT YOUR INFO!

Got the email this morning, my argument in the previous email:

Mr. Hester:

Based upon the response I received from NHTSA and the information you provided, we have determined that the vehicle can be titled and registered. Please note that the county official must verify the vehicle identification number and the Standard Form 97 that you received at the time of purchase. If you will provide me the county where the vehicle will be domiciled, we will contact them directly to advise them as to our determination.

Respectfully,

Mike Gamble, Assistant Director
Motor Vehicle Division
Alabama Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 327610
Montgomery, AL 36132-7610
Office (334) 242-9008
Fax (334) 353-8698





From: Benton Hester
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 7:32 AM
To: Gamble, Mike
Subject: RE: NHTSA Requirements for Previous Military Vehicles


Mr. Gamble,

Thank you for keeping me abreast of developments with this issue, I realize this is a distraction for you and your staff over a small matter but I appreciate your efforts.

My own conversations with NHTSA representatives has not always been positive, their position is the exemption is for the military and the military alone. However, no one I've spoken to has been able to cite anything that supports this. I've repeatedly asked for specific code that defines the exemption as being in effect ONLY while the U.S. Military owns the vehicle, code that specifies an expiration of the exemption when the U.S. Military sells the vehicle to private individuals and/or any written interpretation that contradicts the wording "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..." as found in their own Letter of Interpretation of 3/16/1994 I shared with you. My inquiries are rebuffed with "But YOU'RE not the Army!" and they seem unwilling to examine the exact wording of 49 C.F.R. 571.7.

It is my position that the wording of 49 C.F.R. 571.7 is self-evident and these vehicles are exempted from NHTSA standards. As they are exempted from NHTSA standards, then there were no "...standards in effect at the time of manufacture..." (Code of Alabama) to now require the vehicles to conform to. Even if the NHTSA were issue a Letter of Interpretation that in some tortured fashion found 49 C.F.R. 571.7 to mean the exemption expired when the vehicles were sold to private individuals, we cannot escape the fact the Code of Alabama is quite specific about the precise moment that defines which, if any, standards apply. Regardless of the NHTSA's position on whether the exemption survives the sale of the vehicles into private ownership, everyone agrees they were exempt at the moment the Code of Alabama uses to define the applicable standards, if any.

I apologize if I have belabored the point but I a lot riding on this. I paid the U.S. Government better than $9,000 for this truck, then located (ironically) at Ft. Rucker. I've not tried to play any games with any authority or misrepresent any aspect of the truck, I have a valid Florida title and only seek to conform to Alabama laws by titling and tagging the vehicle here.

Thank you again for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Amos Benton Hester III

 

[ABN173]

Great News!.........but dude get ride of that blue font there is no way I'm reading all that.

 

[gunboy1656]

Glad you got everything straightened out.

 

[abh3]

Wreckerman893: You and the clerk are right, there are no recent changes to the Code of Alabama, this whole things grew from an interpretation at the Dept. of Rev., Motor Vehicle Div., of Code of Al 32-8-42 and the State being unaware of the NHTSA exemption for military vehicles. My A3 had a 6 digit serial number and that raised the red flag. If it doesn't have a 17 digit VIN it's seriously suspect, maybe your truck had a 17 digit VIN, maybe they hadn't arrived at this interpretation yet, who knows... The fact that I had a Florida title didn't matter, it was about the Code of Alabama requiring compliance with safety, theft and emissions standards for date of manufacture. This is not specifically about our hobby, this is all about everybody that tries to tag a golfcart, Kawasaki Mule, ATV, etc in Alabama and gets the authorities all worked up, some code is written or dusted off in response and suddenly unintended consequenses loom for us... But look on the bright side, now you can finally experience the joy of A3 ownership!!!