Possibly No More Trucks from DLA

[Tornadogt]

Sounds like it is getting to a point where an organized response from us is needed and soon.Tell me where to sign. Maybe a Preformatted letter should be written up for us all to send to our state representatives and possibility a Petition as a group to sent wherever need be also?

 

[hklvette]

I have already written my letters to my congressman and senators pointing out why having MVs available to the public is a good thing, and why this deal between the EPA and the DoD is a bad thing. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Form letters do not carry nearly as much weight as individually written ones will.

 

[tow2gunner]

It would be nice if someone could put a form letter together that we could use to reach out to our reps.

 

[SEAFIRE]

Today I got this email from the Texas Facilities Commission, which handles DRMO sales in Texas:

"Federal Surplus Program participants, I want to make this short and to the point. Some of you may already be aware of some issues relating to the availability of diesel trucks thru the Federal Surplus program. I want to share with you all we know so far, the steps we have taken, and steps we plan to take to resolve this issue.
Three weeks ago we were informed via the General Services Administration (GSA) that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) was not releasing vehicles with noncompliant engines outside the Department of Defense (DoD). The change in policy is based on an agreement Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC, formerly the U. S. Tank and Automotive Command) has with the U. S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that tactical vehicles can be manufactured under national security exemptions. Such exemptions are authorized in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 85.1708 and enable the manufacture and use of engines that do not meet emissions standards under the Clean Air Act. While some of these agreements may be as much as 20-25 years old, we have been told some have been renewed as recently as the spring of 2014. As we have learned, these exemptions prohibit distribution of the noncompliant engines outside the Department of Defense (DoD). I am going to simplify this a little, but basically under the EPA agreement, DoD will have to destroy all vehicles produced under the exemption if they are no longer used by DoD.
Since the issue first emerged, DLA has expanded the prohibition to pretty much everything with an engine.
We have had discussions with GSA and DLA staff. We have argued with DLA that:
-this change in policy will have a devastating effect on small cities and counties that rely on surplus equipment to provide services.
-we have also argued with DLA, that even though all DOD vehicles are exempt from EPA standards, the majority of those vehicles are already certified by the manufactures as meeting EPA standards.
As the State of Texas, we have sent a letter to the head of DLA expressing our concern about the impact this prohibition will have on our donees. We have also asked the GSA administrator to work with us in resolving this issue. DLA has told us so far that they will not destroy any vehicles until the issue is resolved. As details are emerging, we continue to work with other States in an effort to reverse this policy. As a next step, we will be contacting our members of Congress requesting their assistance in resolving this issue.
I want to assure you that we will do everything in our power to fight this decision by DLA on behalf of our donees. I will keep you posted of any developments."

 

[CARNAC]

Again, work the issue not the emotion.

To attack the center of gravity, we still must know what is the specific law/agreement that we are attacking. Does somebody already have the specific issue needing addressed.

 

[Mike929]

Again, work the issue not the emotion.

To attack the center of gravity, we still must know what is the specific law/agreement that we are attacking. Does somebody already have the specific issue needing addressed.

How about the action of the EPA to prevent DoD from selling trucks based on the above response? Simply ask your Senators if this is true and request they oppose it if it is. I think it is a reasonable understanding that it is happening to some degree at this time and being argued by GL and possibly other groups, as well as some individuals on this board.

I support individuals speaking with their Reps and Sen. to request their help in bringing these trucks and/or generators back to public auctions and continue to allow the public to purchase, collect, display, etc., based on the information that has been provided to the members in #184 and other supporting responses.

Talking points would be:
1) Preservation of historic vehicles by military collectors and hobbyist.
2) support of public events (parades, charity events, etc.)
3) Re-purposed vehicles that support our farmers and help keep family farms alive
4) Speak from your view point (Please don't tell them you need them for the Zombie apocalypse. )

I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones that I used.

I know this sounds corny, but your voices can make a difference. I supported several letter (email) writing campaigns when items were being forced to a demil status and when enough voters wrote their Representatives they were able to persuade the DOD to stop this. If we all sit around and wait until everything is finalized, then it is only going to be harder to get it reversed.

 

[Csm Davis]

Again, work the issue not the emotion.

To attack the center of gravity, we still must know what is the specific law/agreement that we are attacking. Does somebody already have the specific issue needing addressed.

Carnac has this pegged, this agreement should be available if we can ask the right questions under the freedom of information act, once we have a copy of it we can see what we are up against.

 

[CARNAC]

Please, for God sake, focus on the issue, not the emotion. Emotion is counterproductive to achieving success.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

Sorry, had to curb the emotional response.

 

[ichudov]

Guys, thank you for digging so deep into this vexing question.

I cannot say that I enjoyed this thread, not at all, but I am glad that I have some clarity regarding what happened. It also made me glad that I have one M923A2 left.

A few sentences from your previous replies made me concerned. Does the EPA have any authority to ban use of trucks that already passed into civilian ownership, already are civilian titled, from being used, owned, and driven on roads? In other words, for the vehicles that we already own, is there any danger of them being "outlawed"?

Thanks

 

[bchauvette]

As a manufacturing engineer one of my jobs was to gather the facts so management could make an informed decision. 96% was about the money 4% other (re-election for example). I believe our letters to the legislators would have more impact if we included the facts. We might be able to assemble the facts in one easy to access location.

Some of the things could be:
1) Money lost by not selling the equipment + cost to destroy.
2) Cost and benefit loss to municipalities by not actually owning the vehicles. Reflect on that loaning weapons to L.E.O.debacle. Include the ongoing admin cost by not transferring title.
3) Are the non certified vehicles non compliant or just not certified.
4) Some of the pulled vehicles are actually certified. The Cummins are certified.
5) Impact on pulling these vehicles percentage compared to overall air quality improvement vs cost. see #3 & #4
6) Benefit to individuals owning. Stand by emergency power. Disaster relief. Community affairs, Veteran's ceremony. Patriotic parads, Citizens rights.

What if we started a separate thread where we all could input our individual facts and our own list of use examples, disaster relief,commercial,farm & civic. We could list to who we sent letters to spur others to do the same. We then could refer to the list as we compose our letters.

We would need to keep the thread free of comments for ease of access.

 

[acesneights1]

Guys, thank you for digging so deep into this vexing question.

I cannot say that I enjoyed thiisis the argumeng thread, not at all, but I am glad that I have some clarity regarding what happened. It also made me glad that I have one M923A2 left.

A few sentences from your previous replies made me concerned. Does the EPA have any authority to ban use of trucks that already passed into civilian ownership, already are civilian titled, from being used, owned, and driven on roads? In other words, for the vehicles that we already own, is there any danger of them being "outlawed"?

Thanks

Yes they can. Look what California did to owner operators. I have brought this to the staffs attention about maybe a new thread dealing specifically with just that. I was told use this existing thread. My question to members in California is did the new emissions laws that banned pre 2010 class 8 trucks in California affect you ?
From my understanding anything over 1 r k and pre 2010 has to be outfitted with a DPF. Also where I am going with this is the explanation we have bedn given so fsr is these trucks didnt meet emissions and were exempted with a deal made 20 years ago.
20 years ago is 1994 exactly when pickups and diesel cars got soot traps put on . 95% of the vehichles removed by DoD under the guise of this agreement are pre 94 so was there some standard pre 94 in California that they couldnbe citing ?

 

[CARNAC]

Klotzen nicht Kleckern um Schwerpunkt zu erreichen.

Identify the center of gravity, then act on it decisively, don't tickle.

 

[springbok]

Last night I was at a swim meet and was able to grag the ear of our state senator. He had not heard of the events leading to MVs no longer being sold to "the people"
I did not go into the why they should or should not but did mention that fire companies should not be pulled into this mess.
My main objective was to tell him that there needs to be ab "OFFICIAL" statement as to why this has happened. If we have the official 100% real WHY it gives us the understanding as to if and how to fight it.
He is very opened minded, his take on gun control is we have enough laws that we do not enforce so no need to make ne laws so I feel he will give this a good go.
We all have to start somewhere but without 100% of the facts we have no real starting point, what info to gather to fight this.
Second, I have a friend that is in charge to the local National Guard which has many trucks to be decomed. They have been informed that they sit where they are and nothing more so even these guys are unsure what the situation is.
Being in my posiition when in the military and having a brother "well connected" in his Navy position, there is no widespread info on the whole thing.
I dont want to post more here, feel free to PM me for a little deeper intel...

 

[Hoefler]

I have received a reply from the Charleston, West Virginia local office of Senator Jay Rockefeller concerning my inquiry about the withdraw of heavy surplus trucks and generator sets from the Govliquidation public auction. The EPA has requested that the Defense Logistic Agency no longer offer for sale vehicles that do not meet environmental regulations TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC but will allow non private use under the prior National Security Exception to the EPA requirements. The EPA and the DLA have recently just agreed to allow fire department and law enforcement use of surplus vehicles with a required vehicle turn in and the legal title remaining with the DOD for equipment that does not meet current EPA regulations............. In summary CURRENTLY THE DLA AND THE EPA WILL NO LONGER ALLOW PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF SURPLUS VEHICLES AND GENERATOR SETS ( AND PROBABLY ANY OTHER DIESEL POWERED UNITS) THAT DOES NOT MEET CURRENT EPA EMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS.........Unless sane coordinated action is taken by the military vehicle collector community, and other users of surplus trucks and diesel equipment, such as community service groups, youth organizations, farmers, and ranchers , We will no longer be able to purchase and own military surplus diesel powered vehicles and equipment. I would suggest that an organized effort be made using positive information and tactics to overturn the denial of valuable trucks and equipment for lawful purposes from the public. Yours truly, Mark G. Sergent military vehicle and generator owner, WV State Bar #3337

Everything has trajectory. Given this recent action, can this lead to none of these vehicles already in private hands to be illegal to use on the road. Those active in connecting with their representatives may want to broach this subject. Best to get the issue out fully in an effort to prevent any other shoes from dropping.
Pete
Pete

 

[NEIOWA]

1 or 2 As some know I wildly use DOD surplus for my FD and small town (and have helped may others do the same).


EDIT: Removed inflammatory statements


<I> Senator Grassley has agreed to sign a letter Senator McCain is circulating
asking for all red tape to be removed and any title concerns to be
clarified, but I understand DLA has agreed to resume transfers of military
equipment.They haven't responded to my inquiry, but here's what they told
McCain:


DLA and EPA reached an agreement which allows both the Law Enforcement
Support Office (LESO) and Firefighter Programs to continue to receive
equipment managed through these programs.Both programs will be covered by
the applicable National Security Exemptions (NSEs) previously granted by
EPA.


DLA will notify both programs today that the temporary restriction on the
release of equipment has been rescinded.


Below is the text of the DLA/EPA agreement:


This letter responds to your inquiry dated July 8, 2014 regarding excess
military equipment managed by DLA disposition services. The inquiry included
copies of your current Memoranda of Understanding for the Law Enforcement
Support Office (LESO) 1033 program and the Firefighter 1706 program, the
latter managed by USDA Forest Service, which I'm attaching to this response
and excerpts of which are provided below.


You asked EPA to confirm that equipment transferred to law enforcement and
fire-fighting agencies through this program will continue to be covered by
any applicable National Security Exemption (NSE) previously issued by EPA,
with the understanding that 1) DLA will continue to maintain title to the
equipment; 2) all military vehicles and equipment with an associated NSE
issued to LESO and Firefighters will be tracked by DLA Disposition Services
by Vehicle Identification Number/Serial Number, 3) every participating law
enforcement agency and fire department will have a trained, accountable
individual who will sign for receipt of vehicles, input the vehicles into
Federal Excess Property Management Information System (FEPMIS), and conduct
and document an annual inventory in FEPMIS for these vehicles, 4) each
state, US Territory, and the USDA Forest Service will have a trained and
appointed coordinator for their portion of the program, and 5) when these
agencies no longer require the vehicles, they will return them to DLA
Disposition Services.</i>

 

[NEIOWA]

Part 2 or 2 (why black font?)
<i> EPA's understanding of the critical elements of the MOUs for each program is
as follows:

Department of Defense Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) Program

The Secretary of Defense is authorized by 10 USC § 2576a to transfer to
Federal and State Agencies personal property that is excess to the needs of
the DOD and that the Secretary determines is suitable to be used by such
agencies in law enforcement activities.The DLA Disposition LESO reserves
the right to recall any and all property issued through the LESO Program.
DLA Disposition Services LESO retains permanent title to any and all
property.Once the State/Law Enforcement Agency no longer has use for the
property, the property must either be transferred to another Law Enforcement
Agency or returned to DLA Disposition Service for disposal. Property will
not be obtained for the purpose of sale, lease, loan, personal use, rent,
exchange, barter, to secure a loan, or to otherwise supplement normal Law
Enforcement Activity or State/local governmental entities' budgets. All
requests for property will be based on bona fide law enforcement
requirements. Under no circumstances will property be sold or otherwise
transferred to non-U.S. persons or exported. Loaning to non-participants of
the DLA LESO program is not authorized.

DLA Disposition Services LESO shall maintain a current and accurate list of
all property in the LESO Program.

Department of Defense Firefighter Program (managed by USDA Forest Service)

The Secretary of Defense is authorized by 10 USC § 2576b to transfer to
firefighting agencies in the District of Columbia and the States,
commonwealths, and territories of the United States, personal property that
is excess to the needs of the DOD and that the Secretary of Defense
determines is suitable to be used by such agencies in fire protection and
emergency service activities. The DLA and USDA Forest Service reserves the
right to recall any and all property issued through the Firefighter Program.
DLA retains permanent title to any and all property.Once the firefighting
agency no longer has use for the property, the property must either be
transferred to another firefighting agency or returned to DLA for disposal.
Property will not be obtained for the purpose of sale, lease, loan, personal
use, rent, exchange, barter, to secure a loan, or to otherwise supplement
normal Firefighter activity or State/local governmental entities budgets.
All requests for property will be based on bona fide firefighting
requirements. Under no circumstances will property be sold or otherwise
transferred to non-U.S. persons or exported. Loaning to non-participants of
the Firefighter Program is not authorized.

DLA and USDA Forest Service shall maintain a current and accurate list of
all property in the Firefighter Program.

Based on the information and program descriptions submitted by DLA for
property transferred under the LESO Program and the Firefighter Program, EPA
confirms that the equipment managed through this program will continue to be
covered by the applicable NSEs previously granted by EPA.


James Rice
Legislative Assistant
Office of Senator Charles E. Grassley
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3744

 

[Warthog]

Black font is because you are coping and pasting.

 

[wreckerman893]

The above is fine for forestry, VFD's and other official agencies.
We still have municipalities (that draw the trucks for free, hold and sell them), surplus companies such as Memphis Equipment, and us lowly collectors.
I will be contacting the EPA again today and talking to their Public Affairs person.
They have kicked over an fire ant hill and the last thing this administration needs is a "fraud, waste and abuse" scandal coming out of left field and biting them on the butt prior to the November elections.

 

[wheelspinner]

By them giving "a little" to the Fire Dept this will eliminate the biggest ally that the collector hobby would have had. Once they are made happy that whole argument gets removed. Giving a little with no title transfer is about the worst possible update that us collectors and hobbyists could have seen. They have figured out a loop hole that keeps the masses quiet but no more.

 

[hklvette]

By them giving "a little" to the Fire Dept this will eliminate the biggest ally that the collector hobby would have had. Once they are made happy that whole argument gets removed. Giving a little with no title transfer is about the worst possible update that us collectors and hobbyists could have seen. They have figured out a loop hole that keeps the masses quiet but no more.

This also affects farmers such as myself. Having an MV on the farm has been about is important as having a tractor. If the tractor gets stuck in deep mud (happened twice this winter), a pickup won't pull it out.