Wis DOT v. ex-military vehicles - AB-592

I'm posting this thread to repost some comments I'd made earlier regarding the ongoing struggle in Wis. to secure operating rights for ex-military vehicles. I guess it's my Blog to Counter the DOT's Blog.

In fairness, here's a link to the DOT-biased blog: http://wihmvbill.blogspot.com Wisconsin Historic Military Vehicle Bill Update

Here's a start on my reply:


There are several reasons why Rep. Zigmunt's bill is, in my opinion, unacceptable. Some primarily mostly seem to effect imported ex-military vehicles like mine. Others are unreasonable on broader levels. I'll try my best to explain.



s. 341.10(6), Wis. Stats. should not apply to ex-military vehicles which are considered "motor vehicles" by NHTSA.
In the first place, I believe that this effort by WisDOT to interpret s.341.10(6) as being applicable to a vehicle which U.S. DOT/NHTSA refers to as a "Motor Vehicle" is an incorrect interpretation. The Wis. Admin. Code 305.065 gives examples of some vehicles which s.341.10(6) applies to: "mini-bikes, go-carts and all-terrain vehicles", all of which are not considered "Motor Vehicles" by NHTSA. In fact, NHTSA letters of interpretation specifically ruled these vehicles to be "off-highway" vehicles, and unable to be titled. Conversely, NHTSA letters of interpretation support the on-highway operation of most ex-military "Motor Vehicles" by the public after they are sold as surplus. (HMMVVs and M-151 "Mutt" vehicles are exceptions, as the sale of these to the public has been banned by the U.S. armed forces for safety reasons.)

In my Wis. Dept. of Administration appeal of WisDOT's cancellation of my Pinzgauer's title/registration, the Final Decision reads: "The Department has not shown that Mr. Underwood's Pinzgauer was designed and manufactured for off-highway operation. Accordingly, the titling and registration of his vehicle is not prohibited by Wis. Stat. s.341.10(6).".
http://dha.state.wi.us/home/Decisions/DOT/2008/tr080027.pdf

Near-complete restriction on ex-military vehicle use is unreasonable.
This is probably the biggest problem for me directly. I bought my two ex-military trucks to use them. This restriction on the use of a privately-owned ex-military vehicle to only display, parade, and maintenance use will relegate these vehicles to no more than yard ornaments for most owners. Most ex-military vehicle owners rely on them for some level of general utility use, in addition to the occasional parade or car show.

Section 3 & 4 effectively allow the general utility use of ex-military vehicles by a county or municipality, but disallows such private use. (Please check with Dane Co. Dept. of Public Works at 608 266-4990 (Mike DeMaggio) for their experiences with ex-military trucks in their fleet.) How does a privately owned ex-military vehicle pose any more of a threat than a municipally-owned ex-military vehicle operating on a regular basis? It does not. Your average ex-military vehicle owner, like your average collector car owner, care a great deal about their "baby", and take extraordinarily good care of it. As an indication, please compare the cost for comprehensive insurance policies for collector cars as compared with similar coverage for your average daily driver. The collector car policies are drastically less expensive, and the reason is that they just aren't in many accidents.

The proposed 341.269(3) specifies that ex-military vehicles are to be used only for "special occasions such as display and parade purposes...". Given that many of these vehicles can easily satisfy Wisconsin Admin. Code Ch. Trans 305, which specifies Wisconsin's standards for vehicle equipment, there is no reason for all these vehicles to be limited to such uses.

It is reasonable that ex-military vehicles which cannot satisfy Trans 305 should be restricted to use for "special occasions...". However, ex-military vehicles, both foreign and domestic, which can satisfy Wis. Admin. Code Ch. Trans 305 should be allowed to register according to the owner's uses, ie. "light truck", "farm", etc., just like other vehicles.


Ambiguity over "military design and markings" leaves too much open to individual DOT employee discretion.
341.269(1) seems unfair, but also contrary to actual safety concerns. The phrase "accurately represent its military design and markings" is unworkable. (This phrase is even a problem with Sen. Erpenbach's proposed bill, but in other ways, that bill is still better overall.)

From a safety standpoint, almost any color is more visible than olive drab. (That's why they call it camouflage.) But leaving it up to the discretion of a DOT employee to determine whether a particular truck bears the correct "markings" is unimaginable. Would they know whether that truck was supposed to have desert camouflage, or jungle-like stripes? What if the truck's painted in gloss instead of matte paint? Does it have the correct size star? The phrase is too ambiguous, and leaves the door open for the same sort of shenanigans that some DOT employee used to arbitrarily rescind my (and other's) Pinzgauer title and license in 2007.


The design concern is somewhat understandable, but remember that changing the entire box of a civilian pickup truck is allowable. Many large trucks are purchased from the manufacturer without any box at all, just a bare frame. The box which is attached is suited to the uses of the vehicle. The safety aspects of most trucks are built into the cab and chassis, not what's mounted on the bed. Remember, lots of ex-military trucks are used by municipalities and are routinely altered to suit their new uses, ie. rescue, brush fire trucks, etc. Should there be an inspection if you change the design? Perhaps. But I'd still suggest that this "design" clause in unnecessary, since any vehicle which has been altered "to such an extent that it no longer resembles the original manufactured vehicle" already must be registered as a "reconstructed vehicle", per s.341.268(1)(d), Wis. Stats. As such, current law requires that it must be inspected by the DOT as per Wis. Admin. Code Trans 305.065(1). This statute/code could simply be enforced.

Expecting DOT employees to be able to fairly and accurately enforce this section, as written, is unlikely. This phrase should be struck from the bill.

Document Requirements are too vague to enforce fairly.
341.269(2) is too vague about the specific documents needed to register a vehicle, and puts a potentially impossible burden on the applicant to provide documentation of a vehicle's past. What constitutes "evidence satisfactory to the department that the vehicle may be registered..."? There should be no ambiguity about what documentation is satisfactory. The original federal importation documents (in the case of a vehicle newly imported into the U.S.), a valid U.S. state title, or the original bill of sale from the U.S. armed forces, are sufficient, unless there is specific evidence to suggest a problem with a particular vehicle. (Despite my Dept. of Administration appeal ruling, WisDOT is currently refusing to register two Pinzgauers which were legally imported and which have valid U.S. state titles. So leaving it up to DOT employees to decide obviously doesn't work.)

Valid out-of-state titles should be satisfactory. The U.S. Constitution requires Wisconsin to honor every other U.S. state's documents and legal records, including vehicle titles. Title 49 US Code even specifies a system, which must be used to establish the validity of an out-of-state title, under sections 30502 and 30503.

The importation of foreign ex-military vehicles is overseen by the U.S. DOT/NHTSA. Their procedure determines what documents should be considered satisfactory. The following documents are required to title and license a newly-imported-into the-U.S. Pinzgauer in California, according to Scott Ingham from Expedition Imports:
Bill of Lading listing the Vehicle - Copy OK
Foreign Title - Original
VIN Verification - Original
Application for Original Registration - Original
Wet Stamped (Original Stamp and Signature Required) Copy of the Entry
Summary filed with Customs. (Form 7501)

The original U.S. army document should be satisfactory. When the U.S. armed forces disposes of surplus vehicles, the purchaser of a motor vehicle is provided with a form "SF97" if the vehicle is intended to be titled in the U.S.
http://www.govliquidation.com/terms.html#Section 5: TRANSFER OF TITLE

The purchaser of any other used vehicle is not typically expected to provide additional paperwork besides a valid U.S. title unless there is valid reason to suspect fraud. Asking the owner of an ex-military vehicle to come up with documentation which may stretch back through decades of previous owners is unreasonable. If there are specific documents required to allow the titling and registration of ex-military vehicles, both domestic and foreign, these requirements must be specified.


Section 4 does is confusingly written and does not accurately reflect federal regulations over foreign-marketed motor vehicles.
Any motor vehicle, ex-military or otherwise, which was not originally marketed in the U.S. will lack a NHTSA FMVSS-compliance label. This does not mean that the vehicle necessarily lacks required equipment, it merely means that NHTSA has never certified whether it meets the equipment requirements or not.

Such vehicles that are less than 25 years old can only be imported by a Registered Importer (R.I.), and must be brought into FMVSS compliance. Two labels are then applied to the vehicle by the R.I. signifying FMVSS compliance. The vehicle should be able to be titled/registered as a normal vehicle.

Such vehicles that are more than 25 years old when imported, are considered exempted from FMVSS requirements by U.S. DOT/NHTSA (Title 49 USC Sec. 30112(b)(9)). In the case of my Pinzgauer, NHTSA's intent was clearly stated in a letter of interpretation wherein they determined Pinzgauers to be "Motor Vehicles" intended primarily for operation on highways.
http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/2788y.html

In order that Wisconsin law reflect federal regulations and the licensing policies of the other U.S. states, this bill must provide for the licensing and operation of foreign-market vehicles (ex-military and otherwise) which are imported over 25-years old and have been determined to be "Motor Vehicles" by U.S. DOT/NHTSA.

Here's one for you. All this mess occurred when DOT suddenly started to interpret Wis. Stat. 341.10(6) as meaning: If any vehicle lacks a NHTSA FMVSS-compliance label, the vehicle is an "off-road" vehicle, which the DOT must refuse to register.

I still contend that Wis. Stat. 341.10(6) actually only applies to vehicles which the US DOT/NHTSA does not consider to be Motor Vehicles.

Wisconsin Statute 341.10(6) - Interpretation



Excerpt from Wisconsin Statute

341.10*Grounds for refusing registration. The department shall refuse registration of a vehicle under any of the following circumstances:
(6) The vehicle is originally designed and manufactured for off-highway operation unless the vehicle meets the provisions of s. 114 of the national traffic and motor vehicle safety act of 1966, as amended, except as otherwise authorized by the statutes.

http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/ga...=default.htm&vid=WI:Default&d=stats&jd=341.10



Excerpt from Wisconsin Administrative Code
Trans 305.065 Homemade, replica, street modified,
reconstructed and off?road vehicles.
(3) REGISTRATION. As provided in s. 341.10 (6), Stats., no
vehicle originally designed and manufactured for off?highway
use may be registered by the department unless it bears the label
required by section 114 of the national traffic and motor vehicle
safety act of 1966, as amended. The label shall be affixed by the
original manufacturer and shall certify that at the time of manufac-
ture the vehicle met all applicable federal motor vehicle safety
standards. Vehicles generally not eligible to be registered include,
but are not limited to, mini?bikes, go?carts and all?terrain
vehicles.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/trans/trans305.pdf




Excerpt from NHTSA Importation & Certification FAQ's Directory
3. How does NHTSA determine what is a motor vehicle?
The term “motor vehicle” is defined for the purpose of the statute and regulations that NHTSA administers as “a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways.” See 49 U.S.C. § 30102(a)(6). To be imported free of restriction, a motor vehicle less than 25 years old must be originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS and bear a label certifying such compliance that is permanently affixed by the vehicle’s original manufacturer.
When a vehicle has on-road capabilities, the agency looks at five factors to determine if the vehicle is a “motor vehicle” that must be so manufactured and certified to be lawfully imported into the U.S. These factors are:
• Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use;
• Whether the vehicle’s manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use;
• Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers selling other vehicles classified as motor vehicles;
• Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads; and
• Whether States or Foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.
4. How do I find legal interpretations of NHTSA’s regulations?
Many questions concerning vehicle certification and importation have been previously submitted to NHTSA’s Office of Chief Counsel (OCC) as requests for interpretation of one or more of the agency’s regulations. NHTSA has published these interpretations on the Internet. You may access these at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps.
5. Issues Outside NHTSA's Jurisdiction
NHTSA issues the FMVSS, which establish minimum performance requirements for the safety systems and components on motor vehicles and for certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency regulates the manufacture and importation of motor vehicles to assure compliance with these standards.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/faq site/index.html#Anchor-3.-26716

Excerpt from U.S. DOT/NHTSA Letter of Interpretation
3/9/2004 to Mr. Duff Ref:565#595#571.3

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates "motor vehicles."* That term is defined by our statute as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical vehicles."* That term is defined by our statute as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."*49 U.S.C.§ 30102(a)(6). NHTSA does not regulate vehicles manufactured primarily for off-road use (e.g., ATVs, snowmobiles). Instead, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has jurisdiction over the safety of such vehicles.
http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/TransportCanada_000262.html



Excerpt from U.S. DOT/NHTSA Letter of Interpretation
12/14/1990 to Mr. Fairchild Ref:VSA#571 d:12/14/90

Since the Pinzgauer is operationally capable of on-road use, and there is no indication that the manufacturer does not intend for it to spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA reaffirms its previous statement that these vehicles appear to be "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the Safety Act.

http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/2788y.html

You're certainly welcome. Thanks for reading it.

I just don't believe that WisDOT is right in this. I'll do what I can to correct that.

Paul

Wi 592 and CUCV

From what I understand this is set to advance for a vote in late January. Any of these laws subject to interpretation to me means "if it can mean it, it will mean it". I am glad I finally found a forum with this being scrutinized. With the way this law is written if left up to interpretation some kid with an 80's pickup/blazer and a camo paint job could be designated as having a military vehicle......

On Monday, I will be in contact with Rep. Steinbrink's office (he's the Chair of the Assy. Transportation Committee) to schedule a meeting with he and Rep. Zigmunt (AB-592's author). I had a meeting last month with Rep. Zigmunt in which I raised the need to also allow ex-military vehicles to be registered for normal usage. He seemed at least receptive to talking about amending that bill.

If I can succeed in persuading them to write an amendment which allows registration of ex-military vehicles which corresponds to the owner's use/s (Auto, Light Truck, Farm, Antique, OR Collector), then it will be really important for everybody to contact their Senator and Assy. Rep. to urge their support of the bill.

More later, guests arriving for New Years Day.

Paul

Cucv safety

I have not had any official answer's to the concern if the civilian vehicle's are included in this ban, the under 1 ton Chevy CUCV's, Dodge trucks. Anything larger requires expensive insurance. I did get a response from someone on the classic vehicle side of it that felt the DMV consider's them to be the same as civilian version. I need clarification on that if it was prior to this new wave of anti MV. One thing I do know if they are using safety as the leverage to ban them consider this......"Would you rather be riding in a Chevy CUCV with 15" wheels on the interstate and suddenly come up on a jacknifed semi, or would you rather be riding in an Escalade with 20" rims & 2" of rubber"? I think the tinker toy wheel's these show off's run are far more dangerous than these MV concerns. The CUCV's hydraulic assist disc brakes are superior to the civilian version, might not be ABS but they stop on a dime..............so if this is really about safety they need to exclude them from the restriction's..........or else explain what this is really about.............The idea that these folk's are going to have their registrations secretly suspended with zero notification until they get a suprise ticket somewhere down the road, I imagine they will run the risk of impoundment also......just un-believable!!!!

Update:
My meeting with Rep. Steinbrink is scheduled for next week.


VTwin,

If you want an answer from the DOT, contact the DOT attorney who's been a part of this from the git-go: Paul Nilsen. But I no longer trust anything he says. You can draw your own conclusions if you deal with him.

In conversations I had last week with two Wisconsin ex-mil dealers (Alpha Heaven and Oshkosh Equip. Sales. [NOT Oshkosh Corp.]), they both told me that they are no longer able to sell their vehicles for registration in Wisconsin. State Patrol refused to even inspect trucks for Oshkosh. ???

DOT has stated that this is a safety issue, but they claim to be unable to differentiate between a safe vehicle and an unsafe vehicle, so they rely on whether the vehicle has a LABEL which certifies compliance with US safety standards (FMVSS). No LABEL, the vehicle must be unsafe. Simple as that!

And yeah, for what it's worth, I agree with your observations about safety. By the way, U.S. DOT/NHTSA Interpretations already do exempt our U.S. ex-military vehicles from FMVSS requirements. My Pinzgauer is also exempted under 49USC30112 because of it's age. WisDOT just doesn't want to hear it.

Unbelievable, you bet. So stay tuned... If/when we can get this bill amended to allow regular AND Collector registration of ex-military vehicles, it will be crucial for all of us to call & write your state Senator and Assembly Representatives to support it.

Just before reading this I finally got a call from my state Rep's office. According to what they said the standard size Dodge, and Chevy's were not involved in this. Now reading what your saying, this is not the case and they are already putting the boot's to WI dealer's. Are you sure they cannot sell the standard civilian version or are they just stopping the big truck sales? I still see Alfa selling them with clear WI title's and they were nealy out a few months ago....what a revolting development this is.................keep us posted.......

Alfa reported trouble selling the smaller trucks and blazers. Oshkosh is having trouble with larger trucks.

I assume that what you're refering to as "standard civilian version" are the Chevy pickup and Blazer models made for military use. To my knowledge, these do not have either civilian VINs nor FMVSS labels. On 12/11/09 I heard from a guy who cannot title his '85 Chevy Blazer because it was once owned by the military (Hi D.B.). So yes, I'm sure of this.

As revolting as this is, it will not change unless we can raise a public outcry and get a law passed which requires WisDOT to issue registration to ex-military vehicles. Talk to everybody you know, and be ready to support a good law when it gets written. We're going to have to fight for our rights.

undysworld said:

To my knowledge, these do not have either civilian VINs nor FMVSS labels.

Click to expand...

They (CUCV's) should have VIN's but not the FMVSS label. I have noticed when insuring them that they sometimes have problems "finding" the VIN as it has never been registered/ insured before so it requires some dilligence and patience when dealing with ins companies.


Hope that helps some,
Dale

To amplify Paul's statement a touch: Each and every Wisconsin MV owner should be writing a letter to his Congressmen, both state and local, and telling them that you think what the DOT is doing to MV owners stinks, and that WI DOT needs to be forced to allow normal registration for these motor vehicles.

Every letter your congresscritter receives in the US Mail is considered to be the opinion of somewhere around 1000 voters.

-Chuck

mvpp label

Define that label, the ones I looked at have the standard label on the shroud and air cleaner exactly like my old Silverado. There may be something about exempt, but I cannot determine anything different from normal diesel........I hear an echo of a faint sound, what could it be.......sound's something like jackboot's on cobblestone's.

The FMVSS label wouldn't be on the engine. It would be on a label in the door frame (by the latch), most likely, or on a label on the body around the radiator, or maybe on the firewall. It will say something like meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect as of the date of manufacture, or something like that.

-Chuck

Correct, the label would be applied to the body of the vehicle, typically at the door frame. It signifies that the vehicle complied with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in effect for the year of manufacture.

Vehicles which comply with FMVSS will also have a 17-digit VIN number.

undysworld said:

Vehicles which comply with FMVSS will also have a 17-digit VIN number.

Click to expand...

Undysworld,

CUCV's have a 17 digit VIN but they do not have the FMVSS sticker, for example purposes only I copied this off of a current auction.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]1983 CHEVROLET MDL CD-10516 UTILITY TRUCK, VIN 1G8ED18J8FF103646, MILES 73, 929. PLEASE NOTE: "WITHOUT KEYS" [/FONT]


-Dale

Not all vehicles that comply with FVMSS have 17-digit VINs, since FVMSS took effect in Jan 1968 (except FMVSS 209 which took effect in March 1967) and the 17-digit VINs weren't required until Sept 1980 (FMVSS-115).

undysworld said:

Update:
My meeting with Rep. Steinbrink is scheduled for next week.


VTwin,

If you want an answer from the DOT, contact the DOT attorney who's been a part of this from the git-go: Paul Nilsen. But I no longer trust anything he says. You can draw your own conclusions if you deal with him.

In conversations I had last week with two Wisconsin ex-mil dealers (Alpha Heaven and Oshkosh Equip. Sales. [NOT Oshkosh Corp.]), they both told me that they are no longer able to sell their vehicles for registration in Wisconsin. State Patrol refused to even inspect trucks for Oshkosh. ???

DOT has stated that this is a safety issue, but they claim to be unable to differentiate between a safe vehicle and an unsafe vehicle, so they rely on whether the vehicle has a LABEL which certifies compliance with US safety standards (FMVSS). No LABEL, the vehicle must be unsafe. Simple as that!

And yeah, for what it's worth, I agree with your observations about safety. By the way, U.S. DOT/NHTSA Interpretations already do exempt our U.S. ex-military vehicles from FMVSS requirements. My Pinzgauer is also exempted under 49USC30112 because of it's age. WisDOT just doesn't want to hear it.

Unbelievable, you bet. So stay tuned... If/when we can get this bill amended to allow regular AND Collector registration of ex-military vehicles, it will be crucial for all of us to call & write your state Senator and Assembly Representatives to support it.

Click to expand...

I can understand why you don't trust Paul Nilsen. I have a hearing coming up against Mr. Nilsen concerning the denial of my title and registration of my M35A2. He is definetly not a friend of the Military Vehicle owners. This guy is very nasty to try to reason with and will not compromise. I think we should all share our opinions with him, and perhaps he will see our side more clearly.

Here is an example of a FMVSS label. It was found on the door post of my PU truck.

-Chuck

Well the one I checked has a 17 digit, and a door sticker, with basic tire info, in the glove box is a more extensive sticker with the vin and option list. In the front of the radiator it has one saying it is emmision exempt but state's it is equipped with an engine that complies with the year of mfg............................Now the info I got from my state Rep was that if it has a 17 digit # it's in compliance. It does not mean they will not try something else, they seem to have it out for dual purpose cycles also, so if you have anything like that with a good clear title keep it in a nice fireproof place because it may be hard to get it replaced. If the CUCV's get forced off road it's a good bet they'll be after the regular series 73-87 also because they are virtually identical.