update on some MV issues im working on

[TMOMW]

in the last day or so i have had a bunch of people reach out for help on MV issues...
i am only 1 person and really have no help... but this is what is going on...

im working on helping to fix the OK issue. the state tax lady has decided that no MVs can be registered. she is now telling state sen.s that its fed law that states cant change about vehicles not being on the road... the fix is to do the same thing i did in KS to fix this issue to allow unlimited use of wheeled MVs on the road meeting state requirements... i could use some help... but i am moving ahead with contacting SENs in OK.

KS... FIXED, you are welcome

AK. FIXED!!! happy to help

i have officially reached out to the CEO of AMG to request a official change of status of the way they view private ownership of HMMWVs. they over the last year have had a change by offering parts to the public and moving to a more PRO ownership stance... if i can get that in a public setting that undercuts the DODs argument for crushing HMMWVs.

on the FED side, the last NDAAs demand for a invistigation of the DLA is moving forward. the GAO is crawling all over the DLA right now demanding to know why demil A vehicles are being coded as "conditional" demil C. we (SASC and sen Rounds) are waiting for the report from the GAO that could result in major changes in the way the DOD codes items for demil... this is 5 years worth of work that was hampered and blocked by a handful of collectors (ironic). but i hope to have the results of the invistigation soon, already had 3 people fired / demoted over this at the DLA and the end of the "off road only" stamp.

i know about the "white paper" and i know where the push is coming from (CO), i hope to have sometime to start fighting that soon...

other things being worked on that i hope to talk about sometime soon..

thanks to a handful bunch of people feeding me info..

i am only 1 person, and have no budget, i am doing the work others are supposed to do and are paid to do but refuse..
again if you are helping , with all my heart thanks...

 

[jrtoffroad]

Just wanted to say THANK YOU you for fighting for the MV community! I'm a new HMMWV owner and have only recently learned of various laws and regulations against MV's.

I'll never understand the push to keep such a small volume of vehicles off the road that meet reasonable safety and emission requirements.

Any ways, if you need any assistance in CO please let me know!

 

[TMOMW]

o movement in OK.....
i was on the phone with the state sen that is now really looking at this issue....
if you want to help please call sen pugh and let him know you think safe MVs should be allowed to be on the road...
thanks

 

[TMOMW]

be advised that i am getting NO help from any national group... the OK MV groups have reached out to me and helping... but it will take some work and calls... please help if you are in OK, or if you know someone in OK let them know about this battle... thanks

 

[Hmmwvproject1]

in the last day or so i have had a bunch of people reach out for help on MV issues...
i am only 1 person and really have no help... but this is what is going on...

im working on helping to fix the OK issue. the state tax lady has decided that no MVs can be registered. she is now telling state sen.s that its fed law that states cant change about vehicles not being on the road... the fix is to do the same thing i did in KS to fix this issue to allow unlimited use of wheeled MVs on the road meeting state requirements... i could use some help... but i am moving ahead with contacting SENs in OK.

KS... FIXED, you are welcome

AK. FIXED!!! happy to help

i have officially reached out to the CEO of AMG to request a official change of status of the way they view private ownership of HMMWVs. they over the last year have had a change by offering parts to the public and moving to a more PRO ownership stance... if i can get that in a public setting that undercuts the DODs argument for crushing HMMWVs.

on the FED side, the last NDAAs demand for a invistigation of the DLA is moving forward. the GAO is crawling all over the DLA right now demanding to know why demil A vehicles are being coded as "conditional" demil C. we (SASC and sen Rounds) are waiting for the report from the GAO that could result in major changes in the way the DOD codes items for demil... this is 5 years worth of work that was hampered and blocked by a handful of collectors (ironic). but i hope to have the results of the invistigation soon, already had 3 people fired / demoted over this at the DLA and the end of the "off road only" stamp.

i know about the "white paper" and i know where the push is coming from (CO), i hope to have sometime to start fighting that soon...

other things being worked on that i hope to talk about sometime soon..

thanks to a handful bunch of people feeding me info..

i am only 1 person, and have no budget, i am doing the work others are supposed to do and are paid to do but refuse..
again if you are helping , with all my heart thanks...

I have sent out messages to OK Rep Martinez, OK Rep Anthony Moore, Senator Pugh, Senator Murdock, and a contact of mine has contacted Senator Quinn. Most call OTC and get the same answer and come back to me with OTCs answer. Senator Murdock has introduced legislation in the past just for HMMWVs but gets knocked down in Transportation hearings. But Senator Murdock had expressed interest in new legislation for FMVs.
Rep Martinez's executive assistant has said he is looking into possible legislation but that was over a month ago. Senator Quinn through my contract has said it will probably take legislation but hasn't stated his stance.

 

[TMOMW]

yes it will take a new law, and NO it cant just be for HMMWVS, it needs to be like the one that i put together for KS with kristy williams. the reason for this is 1. unless its a law the "deep state", lawyers and public servents will fight tooth and nail about letting anything on the road that is not green right now. 2. it cant be just for HMMWVs, you dont want to be like the other national group that favors one vehicle and not the rest... all green vehicle lives matter, and 3. getting a law means its set in stone "kind of" and will take another law to get rid of.... any local action, any quick fix can go away in a day.

when it goes to the transport hearing YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MULTI VEHICLE EXPERT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT THE LAWYERS WILL ASK (EPA, SAFETY, ETC...). i am willing to help with all that as i have done in other states. we as a hobby have to fight this, if not its real easy to be like MI and IL where they point at each other and say "it works in that state"....

thanks for the help. and it looks like we have a few people at the state house moving to our side.

i am waiting for a call from sen murdoch to see why it was shot down in the transport com. its fun to see the questions and answers (we dont want tracks on our street, EPA, all MVs are armored, they are death machines, etc.... yes they (state staffers) say that)

 

[TMOMW]

just talked to a major house member in OK, looks good!!!!!!

 

[tobyS]

I live in view of a major north south highway, Us 31, not far from South bend, which has became more limited access on major parts with doubling or tripling the volume. I see convoys of those vehicles and to say they were not designed for the road is patently false. They cruise at safe speeds on that highway.

It was the new vehicles manufacturing association that is the driving force against former MV continued use on the roads.

 

[TMOMW]

I live in view of a major north south highway, Us 31, not far from South bend, which has became more limited access on major parts with doubling or tripling the volume. I see convoys of those vehicles and to say they were not designed for the road is patently false. They cruise at safe speeds on that highway.

It was the new vehicles manufacturing association that is the driving force against former MV continued use on the roads.

HW 31.. im from elkhart myself and they were designed for 60% highway use...

 

[TMOMW]

letter that AM general was trying to hide for years....

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA
DATE: 02/09/88
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA
TO: Karen Hastie Williams -- Crowell & Moring
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT:
Ms. Karen Hastie Williams Crowell & Moring 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2505
This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1987, on behalf of your client, LTV Aerospace, and its predecessor, AM General. You have asked that we reconsider our letter of January 12, 1987, in which we informed AM General that we would consider certai n military vehicles "motor vehicles" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event they are discovered to have safety related defects. You have also asked for the opportunity to meet with us at our earliest convenience.
Because AM General had stated that the vehicles in question are designed to be used 60% of the time on primary and secondary roads, our letter concluded that tactical military vehicles such as the M998 Series 1 1/4 ton truck, the 2 1/2 ton M44 Series, an d the 5-ton M809 and M939 Series trucks are "motor vehicles". You believe that this interpretation was based upon "inadequate and misleading information", for the following reasons, paraphrased as follows:
1. The trucks are designed to military specifications and built for the military alone.
2. The government rejects a warranty concept and substitutes its own inspection and quality control standards.
3. Under the inspection clause, AM General must deliver trucks that meet contractual performance requirements and correct problem areas identified by the government.
4. AM General must comply with a performance safety standard (MIL-STD-1180B) comparable to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
5. No safety purpose is served by "superimposing" a notification and remedy requirement where there is only a single purchaser, where no warranty relationship exists, and where remedies for defective products are identified by the government and remedy i mplemented by the company under the terms of the contract.
6. The vehicles are defined in part as "seldom capable of maintaining normal highway speeds" and "usually operated in convoy on public highways".
In consideration of the foregoing you have asked for an interpretation that concludes that military tactical vehicles are specifically designed to meet military specifications and are not manufactured primarily for highway use, that they are not subject to the notice and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Act"), and that they are exempt from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
We have reconsidered our interpretation in light of the arguments you have presented. For both legal and policy reasons we affirm that the trucks in question are "motor vehicles" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 139113), that vehicles produced to military specifi cations are exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.7(c)), but that they are subject to statutory notification and remedy provisions in the event that they incorporate a safety related defect.
Specifically, the sole legal criterion that the Act establishes to determine its jurisdiction is whether a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. From the information presented to us by AM General we concluded that the trucks in q uestion 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. You have not contested that assertion. It is immaterial to the Act's definition of "motor v ehicle" that a truck is produced under military specifications, without an express warranty, and for only a single purchaser.
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 capabilit y 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. Indeed, the Department of Defense in apparen t 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 which you enclosed.
Finally, we cannot agree with your contention that no additional benefit would flow to the government by requiring notification and remedy for safety related defects in these vehicles. We understand that AM General is required to deliver vehicles free of defects and which meet contractual specifications, but we are uncertain whether, under the inspection clause, the government has a right to demand remedy once it has accepted delivery of the vehicle in the event that safety related defects manifest them selves in service. Such a right exists independently under the notification and remedy provisions of the Act (i.e. the Department of Defense may petition this agency for a determination that a safety related defect exists). Further, the manufacturer itse lf 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. Such an obligation appears absent from the contractual responsibilities of a ma nufacturer in the materials you have quoted to us and the arguments you have made.
Because your letter contains information sufficient for us to affirm our earlier letter, we have concluded that a meeting will not be required to clarify any of the points you have made.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
December 1, 1987
Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 0590

 

[jrtoffroad]

Very interesting. Do you happen to have copy of the earlier letter? Why would AM General want to hide this?

 

[TMOMW]

no the first letter is not on the web as far as i know

 

[TMOMW]

remember this was not too long after the M151 issue where AMG was sued for "letting" the M151 on the civilian market. they were afraid that the hmmwv release would get another law suit... after that they were selling the H1 and didnt want comp. from the "cheap" surplus hmmwvs. i am trying to get with the CEO of AMG to see what the current stance is at AMG on civ hmmwvs is. the DLA are still using the old AMG talking points to block ANY sales of future HMMWVs. they are stating that AMG told the demil branch that all hmmwvs are uparmored with "light" armor kits.

 

[Micmada]

I live in view of a major north south highway, Us 31, not far from South bend, which has became more limited access on major parts with doubling or tripling the volume. I see convoys of those vehicles and to say they were not designed for the road is patently false. They cruise at safe speeds on that highway.

It was the new vehicles manufacturing association that is the driving force against former MV continued use on the roads.

If Haggerty insures my truck for $50 a month because that slow thing is considered safe , then these bureaucrats have nothing to stand on as far their excuses go. Not sure how much it costs to insure a Tesla, but these batteries and the speed of that thing tell me they could be a major Hazmat issue... Funny how common sense actuarial money calculations trump this politics by people who have no clue other than their whiney basket weaving studies degrees.

 

[Micmada]

remember this was not too long after the M151 issue where AMG was sued for "letting" the M151 on the civilian market. they were afraid that the hmmwv release would get another law suit... after that they were selling the H1 and didnt want comp. from the "cheap" surplus hmmwvs. i am trying to get with the CEO of AMG to see what the current stance is at AMG on civ hmmwvs is. the DLA are still using the old AMG talking points to block ANY sales of future HMMWVs. they are stating that AMG told the demil branch that all hmmwvs are uparmored with "light" armor kits.

Looks like a need for a solid organization funding for this kind of legislative fight. Many groups have good lobbies. Police, firefighters etc... have many lobbies pushing laws in their favor. I suppose vehicles are not an inalienable right, so it is an uphill battle. What is the word from classic car lobbies?

 

[Micmada]

letter that AM general was trying to hide for years....

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA
DATE: 02/09/88
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA
TO: Karen Hastie Williams -- Crowell & Moring
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT:
Ms. Karen Hastie Williams Crowell & Moring 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2505
This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1987, on behalf of your client, LTV Aerospace, and its predecessor, AM General. You have asked that we reconsider our letter of January 12, 1987, in which we informed AM General that we would consider certai n military vehicles "motor vehicles" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event they are discovered to have safety related defects. You have also asked for the opportunity to meet with us at our earliest convenience.
Because AM General had stated that the vehicles in question are designed to be used 60% of the time on primary and secondary roads, our letter concluded that tactical military vehicles such as the M998 Series 1 1/4 ton truck, the 2 1/2 ton M44 Series, an d the 5-ton M809 and M939 Series trucks are "motor vehicles". You believe that this interpretation was based upon "inadequate and misleading information", for the following reasons, paraphrased as follows:
1. The trucks are designed to military specifications and built for the military alone.
2. The government rejects a warranty concept and substitutes its own inspection and quality control standards.
3. Under the inspection clause, AM General must deliver trucks that meet contractual performance requirements and correct problem areas identified by the government.
4. AM General must comply with a performance safety standard (MIL-STD-1180B) comparable to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
5. No safety purpose is served by "superimposing" a notification and remedy requirement where there is only a single purchaser, where no warranty relationship exists, and where remedies for defective products are identified by the government and remedy i mplemented by the company under the terms of the contract.
6. The vehicles are defined in part as "seldom capable of maintaining normal highway speeds" and "usually operated in convoy on public highways".
In consideration of the foregoing you have asked for an interpretation that concludes that military tactical vehicles are specifically designed to meet military specifications and are not manufactured primarily for highway use, that they are not subject to the notice and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Act"), and that they are exempt from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
We have reconsidered our interpretation in light of the arguments you have presented. For both legal and policy reasons we affirm that the trucks in question are "motor vehicles" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 139113), that vehicles produced to military specifi cations are exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.7(c)), but that they are subject to statutory notification and remedy provisions in the event that they incorporate a safety related defect.
Specifically, the sole legal criterion that the Act establishes to determine its jurisdiction is whether a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. From the information presented to us by AM General we concluded that the trucks in q uestion 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. You have not contested that assertion. It is immaterial to the Act's definition of "motor v ehicle" that a truck is produced under military specifications, without an express warranty, and for only a single purchaser.
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 capabilit y 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. Indeed, the Department of Defense in apparen t 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 which you enclosed.
Finally, we cannot agree with your contention that no additional benefit would flow to the government by requiring notification and remedy for safety related defects in these vehicles. We understand that AM General is required to deliver vehicles free of defects and which meet contractual specifications, but we are uncertain whether, under the inspection clause, the government has a right to demand remedy once it has accepted delivery of the vehicle in the event that safety related defects manifest them selves in service. Such a right exists independently under the notification and remedy provisions of the Act (i.e. the Department of Defense may petition this agency for a determination that a safety related defect exists). Further, the manufacturer itse lf 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. Such an obligation appears absent from the contractual responsibilities of a ma nufacturer in the materials you have quoted to us and the arguments you have made.
Because your letter contains information sufficient for us to affirm our earlier letter, we have concluded that a meeting will not be required to clarify any of the points you have made.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
December 1, 1987
Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 0590

It seems to me highways were built by Eisenhower specifically for military vehicle transit. What the heck are these civilian bureaucrats smoking. It is the regular joe Toyota which is to accomodate, to highways, and not MVs. I bet that with open borders and "China is everything" they would sing a different tune if these were auctioned off Ali Baba or registered in Mexico, Cartel certified. Sheesh. Sadly it might come down to that, getting a residency business in Mexico, pay the kickback and bam! Building an organization with a lawyer and setting up trust accounts linked to business in Mexico might be the way to go in order to register them there and operate on US highways. I do not get it that police and bureaucrats are in a no-negociation position on everything. The paranoia is astounding.

 

[Micmada]

I live in view of a major north south highway, Us 31, not far from South bend, which has became more limited access on major parts with doubling or tripling the volume. I see convoys of those vehicles and to say they were not designed for the road is patently false. They cruise at safe speeds on that highway.

It was the new vehicles manufacturing association that is the driving force against former MV continued use on the roads.

If driving around Gary, IN - Chicago , given how bad the highways are there, a MV seem to be only the safe choice...

 

[TMOMW]

here is what i have been doing in my "spare" time.. i put this together and its the 4th time that it looks like it will pass in 4 different states (in one form or another).
1. have supporters in your house and senate transport com... rep frix and sen stainbridge...
2. the bill is together and headed to the trans com, then the full house and senate.
3. thanks to you if you made a phone call or supported me in any way..
4. this had NOTHING to do with the "other" national group (board of directors ) that has been trying to stop me over the last 4 years and been posting lies about me and conducting a smear campaign against me personally to try and stop me from getting laws passed that are pro MV . if it was up to them this (and 4 other states ) would not have new rules or laws...
5. anyone needing help for other states on this issue i am glad to help help for free.... its 100% to save history, thats the mission
again thanks all
PLEASE SHARE WITH EVERYONE!!!
HB3179 | Oklahoma 2022 | Motor vehicles; defining terms; requiring registration for certain vehicles; effective date. | TrackBill
https://trackbill.com/.../oklahoma-house-bill.../2198206/...

 

[Micmada]

As for the collectors blocking it, I am not surprised. Organizations of collectors want the special licensing gravy boondoggle belonging fees, aka Chamber of Commerce Occupational Licensing mafia (yes, the thugs who send swat teams because a lady has been braiding hair without a hair dresser license). Ironically the Occupational Licensing and club bunch are often "guarded hunt" country club republicans and not democrats ... Just a my hunch if you needed some helpful Intel.

 

[Micmada]

An issue I have is being pressured by Ritchie Bros to pick up my vehicle despite having no SF97 nor any clearance being settled yet. I find that unfair. Being pressed for time increase shipping costs for lack of adequate bidding time and they push one to do things the shady way for their bottom line.

The other day I ended up driving my truck out the yard without any SF97 to a "local" storage place. I took a wrong turn and ended up outside California. I was sweating bullets heading back through the california border police of inspection...