Maryland Inspections and Registration Problem

[JohnfLongjr]

Has anyone had a problem getting a Maryland inspection done for registration. I gust titled two 1993 M35A3 trucks for Mission BBQ and the state will not let the inspection folks do the
inspections. The Sgt at the Maryland State Police said these vehicle were not meant for highway us and they can not be licensed. I attached the letter sent to the inspection stations.
Currently Mission BBQ has 27 trucks titles and tagged in Maryland.

 

[HDN]

This is absurd. @Ajax MD and some others have former military vehicles titled and road-legal just find in MD. I'm guessing the State Police didn't care that you already had more trucks road-legal in MD? I think you better get a hold of your state representative and explain that this is a misunderstanding.

Does Mission BBQ own the most M35A3s out of anyone? One location was opened in nearby Henrietta, NY where I saw one parked out front. Maybe I'll bring my M35A3 up and the two trucks can have a dinner date while my wife and I are on one at Mission BBQ

 

[Ajax MD]

Has anyone had a problem getting a Maryland inspection done for registration. I gust titled two 1993 M35A3 trucks for Mission BBQ and the state will not let the inspection folks do the
inspections. The Sgt at the Maryland State Police said these vehicle were not meant for highway us and they can not be licensed. I attached the letter sent to the inspection stations.
Currently Mission BBQ has 27 trucks titles and tagged in Maryland.
View attachment 846695

Hey, I called Mission BBQ long ago about this, warned them. Tried to enlist their assistance. The guy blew me off and this is where we are now.

 

[HDN]

Hey, I called Mission BBQ long ago about this, warned them. Tried to enlist their assistance. The guy blew me off and this is where we are now.

It actually took me a couple days to realize what exactly you were talking about. Then I remembered that MD had somewhat recently passed stupid laws restricting FMVs from driving on public roads. Mission BBQ was certainly short-sighted in refusing to help FMV enthusiasts, but that's probably because they're in the BBQ business and not the FMV business, even though FMVs seem to be an important part of their catering image.

@JohnfLongjr , I suggest telling the Mission BBQ owners that their unwillingness to help the MD FMV community is affecting their registration of the two M35A3s you mentioned, and they need to step up and advocate for the FMV community in MD. I will certainly keep this in mind when I visit the new location near me.

 

[HDN]

I will certainly keep this in mind when I visit the new location near me.

I should've changed "when" to "if". I appreciate what Mission BBQ does for veteran and first responder organizations, but I can do my part to their direct benefit without having to visit a restaurant.

 

[Ajax MD]

I don't think they're are any new laws, this is just the MSP trying to legislate from their office.

I was trying to squash this when covid came along and gummed up the legislature.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

They are exempt, thus, comply with FMVSS.

But, it's MSP....


If the vehicles are owned by a company, open an 'office' in another state and title them there.

 

[BEASTMASTER]

i told the guys in wilm. this crap was coming and to let his guys in MD this was coming . i guess it went in one ear and out the other.

 

[Ajax MD]

I'm going to contact Delagate Hornberger again. This is the representative I was working with on the original bill to fix this problem.
He told me that the bill wouldn't be reintroduced this year because of a legislative backlog caused by COVID.

Here's the thing: We don't really need or want a new "law" on the books. There is currently no LAW against FMV's in Maryland. All we need to do, is get a sympathetic politician to call the MSP and tell them to knock off the bull$h!t. The state police are overstepping their authority.

 

[Ajax MD]

Ok once again, down the rabbit hole we go. Below is a quote of the letter that I have sent to my own delegate as well as Delegate Hornberger who is sympathetic to our position. If you're in Maryland, I urge you to email your delegates and CC delegate Hornberger with a similar email.

Dear Delegates Hornberger and Howard,

Your Honors,

For the past few years now, the Maryland State Police ASED (Automotive Safety Enforcement Division) has been promulgating an incorrect memorandum to all vehicle safety inspection stations forbidding these stations from conducting vehicle safety inspections on surplus military vehicles legally sold to the law-abiding public.

I'm attaching a copy of the memorandum for your review. In summary, the memo states that former military vehicles are "not meant" for driving on public roads and do not meet the FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards). This is patently false. All military vehicles comply with MIL-STD-1108-B which is the military counterpart to the FMVSS. All surplus military vehicles in civilian hands are equipped with the proper lighting systems, brakes, mirrors and other basic safety equipment required by the FMVSS (appropriate to their original year of manufacture).

The state of Maryland allows classic and antique vehicles to operate on Maryland state and federal highways that are even less so equipped for safety under special registration categories. Police and Fire departments often purchase surplus military vehicles and operate them on Maryland state and federal highways. (Example: https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/bs-md-sun-investigates-military-deals-20151017-story.html) The Maryland State Police ASED is engaged in "legislation by agency" which is unethical and does not carry the weight of law. There is currently NO law on Maryland books which regulates or prohibits the operation of surplus/former military vehicles by the civilian public (or government agencies). It is absurd on its face that the Maryland State Police have purchased HMMWV's and armored personnel carriers for operation on public roadways but claim that the law-abiding public cannot own and operate a HMMWV or unarmored cargo truck in a similar fashion.

The Maryland civilian public operates surplus military vehicles safely on our highways every single day. One of the largest and most visible examples is Mission BBQ. I personally own a former military cargo truck that served in a security capacity at the 9/11 World Trade Center site on the day of the attacks. We operate our vehicles in parades, displays and when required, we assist those in need with high water rescues and natural disaster relief efforts. Statistics on crashes and fatalities involving surplus military vehicles operated by civilians are practically non-existent because we do not represent any noteworthy hazard on public roadways.

I am writing to request your assistance in working with the ASED to direct them to rescind their illegal memorandum and stop harassing law-abiding owners of former military vehicles. We are no different than owners of vintage fire trucks and other classic vehicles who merely wish to enjoy our hobby in peace.

 

[Ajax MD]

Oh- I attached the pertinent documents such as the bogus memo and the MIL-STD.

 

[Bulldogger]

Hey, I called Mission BBQ long ago about this, warned them. Tried to enlist their assistance. The guy blew me off and this is where we are now.

I did the same and got an identical response from their Virginia rep when we were fighting the VA HMMWV retired military vehicle law.
BDGR

 

[ZiggyO]

There is currently no LAW against FMV's in Maryland.

There is a legal precept that you can throw out there called "nulla pena sin lege" --- my Latin is rusty, but it roughly means that you cannot have a penalty without a law in the first place. In other words, unless it is specifically prohibited by an in-place law, any action taken by an agency would be deemed void and therefore in violation of your rights. It sort of builds on that whole "innocent until proven guilty" cornerstone that so many 'public servants' on the political food chain conveniently ignore.........

Z

 

[reset2]

The Maryland Liptards strike again.

 

[The King Machine]

It's Happening in my province of British Columbia

They are doing it the exact same way.

 

[Jeff MD]

I'm going to contact Delagate Hornberger again. This is the representative I was working with on the original bill to fix this problem.
He told me that the bill wouldn't be reintroduced this year because of a legislative backlog caused by COVID.

Here's the thing: We don't really need or want a new "law" on the books. There is currently no LAW against FMV's in Maryland. All we need to do, is get a sympathetic politician to call the MSP and tell them to knock off the bull$h!t. The state police are overstepping their authority.

And that is exactly where I stopped. I got the MSP to revise the original BS memo where they said the HMMWV was an off-road vehicle only and can't be registered. They left on the FMVSS crap. The original MSP memo had FMVSS and a picture of the title showing stamped "off-road only". It took numerous phone calls with MSP, MVA and the delegates to get this far.

I think what needs to change is an update to the Maryland law allowing for vehicles that are exempt from FMVSS at the time of manufacture to be allowed to register. Don't mention former military vehicles or HMMWVs. Just allow those vehicles that are exempt to register.

I had considered taking this to the federal level and requesting a review of our FMVSS status and then declaring that we are compliant based on our exemption. The only problem with that is sometimes by asking for a ruling it can come down on either side. Meaning we could end up in a worse place if their ruling states they shouldn't be on the roads...

 

[Ajax MD]

I think what needs to change is an update to the Maryland law allowing for vehicles that are exempt from FMVSS at the time of manufacture to be allowed to register. Don't mention former military vehicles or HMMWVs. Just allow those vehicles that are exempt to register.

I agree. It's kind of the same thing as not requiring a 1940's Ford to have shoulder seatbelts because they were exempt at the time of manufacture. You're also right about the risk of "poking the bear" when getting the Fed involved.

Our state politicians seem fixated on pandemic nonsense. I'm not sure they're interested in entertaining any bills that aren't related to somehow giving them more authority.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

And that is exactly where I stopped. I got the MSP to revise the original BS memo where they said the HMMWV was an off-road vehicle only and can't be registered. They left on the FMVSS crap. The original MSP memo had FMVSS and a picture of the title showing stamped "off-road only". It took numerous phone calls with MSP, MVA and the delegates to get this far.

I think what needs to change is an update to the Maryland law allowing for vehicles that are exempt from FMVSS at the time of manufacture to be allowed to register. Don't mention former military vehicles or HMMWVs. Just allow those vehicles that are exempt to register.

I had considered taking this to the federal level and requesting a review of our FMVSS status and then declaring that we are compliant based on our exemption. The only problem with that is sometimes by asking for a ruling it can come down on either side. Meaning we could end up in a worse place if their ruling states they shouldn't be on the roads...

There already is that letter, I know I've posted it numerous times, as have others.

NHTSA basically said 'it's exempt, therefore complies'.

 

[Jeff MD]

There already is that letter, I know I've posted it numerous times, as have others.

NHTSA basically said 'it's exempt, therefore complies'.

This was part of one of my emails to the state Deligates. We have a firm case I believe if we wanted to seek legal action to have the law changed.


FMVSS Interpretation by NHTSA

In 1966, the federal government enacted the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), and in doing so, added section 49 CFR 571.7(c) to the Act, which states, “vehicles produced to military specifications are exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards”. The reasoning, per the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is this:

“From the information presented to us by AM General we concluded that the trucks in question spend 60% of their operational life on primary and secondary roads, and that therefore they have been manufactured primarily for use on such public roads."

"Although Congress expressed no intent that military vehicles be excluded from the coverage of the Act, the agency determined for reasons of policy that vehicles manufactured pursuant to military specifications should be exempted from conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the authority of the Act. Comments received at the end of 1966 in response to the proposals for the initial standards raised the possibility that compliance in some instances could affect the capability of equipment to fulfill its military mission, and therefore when the standards were adopted, military vehicles were exempted under 49 CFR 571.7(c), but the agency relinquished no other jurisdiction over them. ”

NHTSA makes it clear that Humvees are still governed by all other aspects of the Act, especially the notification and remedy provisions of the Act. For example, under this provision, “...the manufacturer itself [in this case, AM General] has a good faith obligation imposed by the Act to determine the existence of a safety related defect when the facts so indicate, and to effectuate notification and remedy…”

More importantly still, despite the exemption from the FMVSS, and the general misconception, the Humvee does still comply to the federal safety standards, the NHTSA further states:

“…the Department of Defense in apparent recognition that its vehicles are "motor vehicles" has attempted to ensure that they conform with the Federal safety standards to the extent practicable, as evidenced by MIL-STD-1180B…”

Here is the full NHTSA Interpretation (which is actually a correspondence between AM General and NHTSA):

https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht88-129

MIL-STD-1180B - FMVSS equivalent for Military Vehicles.

Per the NHTSA Interpretation of FMVSS above, the forward to MIL-STD-1180B reads as follows:

"Although vehicles and equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications are specifically exempted from the provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), it is the established policy of the Army to comply with the intent of those standards as long as compliance does not degrade essential military characteristics. With the same limitation, compliance with applicable provisions of (Federal) Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (MCSR) is an Army requirement.

This military standard provides guidance to assure proper safety characteristics associated with FMVSS are designed into military vehicles in a consistent manner."

Additionally there is guidance in the attached MIL-STD-1180B further defines military vehicle classes as they relate to FMVSS:

"5.4 Application of FMVSS. The application of specific requirements —-— within the FMVSS’S, military wheeled vehicles designed to

(a) carry 10 passengers or less and

(b) have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10 000 pounds, shall comply with those requirements which apply to “passenger cars”.

Military wheeled vehicles designed to carry more than 10 passengers, shall comply with those requirements which apply to “buses”.

Military wheeled vehicles which have a pounds, shall comply with those requirements GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds shall comply with those requirements which apply to “trucks”."

The document (MIL-STD-1180B) also lists in detail which FMVSS standards that Military vehicles comply with and in many of the cases exceeds those standards.


Wisconsin appeals case:

Attached you will find a court ruling from Wisconsin where the state DMV blocked the registration of a Former Military Vehicle based on the fact it did not have a VIN plate that certified that it met the FMVSS. The Wisconsin courts ruled that in fact military vehicles are built to FMVSS standards based on MIL-STD-1180B and the burden of proof rests on the state to find anything lacking in the vehicles that does not meet federal safety standards:

"This new evidence is sufficiently strong that it establishes a presumption that the petitioners’ vehicle does meet the FMVSS and shifts the burden to the Department to show that the vehicle does not meet FMVSS. In its response to the Kasbergers’ new evidence, the Department pointed out other sections of the manual that provided that the vehicles should be built to meet FMVSS “as long as compliance does not degrade essential military characteristics” (for example, exh. 51, page iii). The Department; however, is unable to point to any specific federal safety standard that the Kasbergers’ vehicle does not meet."

In Summary:

Given all the information above I hope you will see that we do in fact comply with FMVSS in multiple ways as stated by NHTSA, the Wisconsin appeals court case and in the military standards doc defined by the DoD military standards guide (MIL-STD-1180B) on the compliance with FMVSS when it relates to military vehicles.

I would ask that the revised ASED bulletin be fully retracted and vehicles allowed to be legally inspected and registered for on-road use as they were designated by NHTSA.

Revised ASED Bulletin in question:

https://mdsp.maryland.gov/ASED/ASED Bulletins/Bulletin ASED-009 Military Vehicle Inspection (Revised 2-11-21).pdf

 

[Ajax MD]

@Jeff MD When you say "take legal action" do you mean sue the government or just lobby the Delegates to change the law?

Your case written above is well thought out and seems on solid legal ground (I'm not a lawyer and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express either).
Do you think we're at a point where Maryland owners could band together to hire an attorney to help us assemble a case or do you think that's overkill/unnecessary?