Trouble in Iowa with titles

June 14th, 2014.

Bette Davis had it quite right, getting old isn't for sissies. See letter below referred to in my post No. 60 above!


TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John M. Tolliday -- President, Dayman USA Inc. (Bedford, VA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/89 from Stephen P. Wood to Clifford
Anglewicz (Sec 102); Also attached to letter dated 9/2/93 from John M. Tolliday
to John Womack (OCC 9063)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of September 2, 1993, with respect to your wish
to import "British Army Ferret Armored Cars." The armaments have been removed.
You would be selling these vehicles "on the basis they would only be used for
off road purposes." You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the
machine.

By way of background, I would like to discuss how military vehicles
manufactured in the United States are treated under the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSS). The first qu estion to be answered is whether any particular
vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Safety Act, that is to say,
whether it is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the
public roads. If we conclude that a vehicle is manufac tured primarily for on
road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold
"on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in
which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a
restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle. As for
individual vehicle types, to state the obvious, a tracked motor vehicle such as
a tank intended for cross-country off-road terrains is not a "motor vehicle." If
a vehicle, suc h as a military bus, has been manufactured primarily for on- road
use, it is a "motor vehicle." However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance
with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual
specifications of the armed forc es of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)).
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 milita ry life without having
to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS (however, because of safety policy
considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV
vehicles).



The importation of used military vehicles manufactured abroad is governed
differently. Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used,
that is imported into the United States must be brought into conformity with all
FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be
answered is whether a Ferret, at the time of importation, would be considered a
"motor vehicle." In an interpretation concerning an "armored security vehicle"
then being used by the U.S. armed for ces, we informed the manufacturer, Verne
Corporation on August 7, 1989, that the vehicle would have to conform to the
FMVSS if sold for civilian use. I enclose a copy of that interpretation. We
believe that this interpretation applies to the Ferret as well, and, therefore,
the vehicle is not exempt from the FMVSS. Because of the

overall configuration of the Ferret with its high approach and departure
angles and its suitability for use on rough terrain, the FMVSS that would apply
are those that must be met by a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."
Assuming you are still interested in importing the Ferret's for resale, the
Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that
the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the Ferrets
be imported by a "re gistered importer." The agency makes determinations upon
the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its
own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as
capable of converting vehicles to meet t he FMVSS. If you would like further
details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know
and we shall be pleased to provide them.

A while back, I had a conversation with a DOT inspector about military vehicles in Iowa. This is the guy that you go to if say for instance you re-built a classic car and need to get a vin/title for it because it was re-done using a different frame or cab. Anyway in regards to titling mv trucks, he talked about the issue of SF97 using the rebuild date of 1989 vs the data plate of 1966 or something like that. He said the best thing to do on something like that is to try and avoid having paperwork with different years than data tags. Basically it creates the whole situation of "the law says this so it can't be done", but can be due to other dates pertaining to the truck. Just makes it more complicated and time consuming. Another point he made was document the serial number of the frame, engine, and data tag. He either was in the military or knows how they sometimes will swap data plates or cabs and chassis. More than anything document what you have on your vehicle because some law enforcement people aren't fully aware of how numbers can get mismatched. Another tid bit of information he told me was that in Iowa there are approximately 100ish military vehicles titled and licensed in the state. That didn't count CUCVs because many of them were ran through as standard pickups or blazers, nor did it count some jeeps that have been titled as regular jeeps, or the civilian equivalent fleet type trucks. Primarily that count was tactical trucks. Seems like a good guy, and someone to have on our side if an issue comes up.

Why would you try to register a vehicle that has no VIN?
CH Hanson sells Alphabetical/Numerical steel stamp punches,
just add it, but usually folks just can not find the VIN , or it is under a
winch bracket or 40 coats of paint. Usually DS, Front, on
frame, behind tire.

No laws against adding a VIN number to a vehicle
or to a trailer
that I know of so long as there is no attempt at
CHANGING a VIN nor other nefarious illegal activities.

Case and point, if I were to build trailers or trucks and
sell them "I" am to add a VIN w/ a stamp set right?
No Federal agency is going to do it nor oversee it either!

There is no law that says YOU CAN'T DO THAT
but certainly if you bring a vehicle to register it and
it has no VIN your just asking for trouble.

Since the military vehicles are using the serial number as the VIN, I've seen where the county treasurer won't register because it doesn't truly say VIN. That officer I spoke with said he gets trucks in because of that issue. Since vehicles in Iowa are registered by the county treasurer, sometimes they are entrenched in what they do routinely that anything out of the ordinary "can't be done" Luckily I live in a small county and know the ladies behind the counter. When I registered my deuce, they had some trouble, but I told them what county I got this truck in, and who the dealer was. One quick phone call to that county and it was registered. When I talked to the dealer I got it from, he said he had to do a lot of homework on how to plate the truck in Iowa (pre 2012 legislation), and then had to give the courthouse a crash course on registering military vehicles. My biggest issue in getting mine registered was they question the Jeep as mfg. Went out and showed them the data plate where it said Kaiser Jeep Corporation. The lady thought that only Jeeps were Jeeps and didn't realize they made other things. Getting plates for the m149 water buffalo might be another story though, with two data tags on the frame. Stay tuned...

saddamsnightmare said:

June 14th, 2014.

Before this thread gets locked, please permit me to point out the following letter from the United States Attorney General as regards the grandfathering of vehicles built for the U.S. Military services in regards to Federal Highway Safety regulations, and DO note this applies to vehicles before the HMMWV series which are not so covered: The letter was from John Day, US Attorney General's Office and David Doyle had posted it on here. The interpretation was that the exemption covered the vehicles as build to meet military specifications and passed that exemption down to later owners. I am going to have to dig like mad, if I find it I will post it on here. The states cannot specifically exceed the Federal regulations where the Federal Government exempts itself from such.

Click to expand...

Kyle,

If you are referring to the NHTSA Letter of Interpretation to John Tolliday (in post #61), I don't think that it actually passes the exemption down to subsequent owners. The Tolliday letter was written in response to an inquiry about an imported foreign former-military vehicle. By way of providing background information, it also details that the U.S. Govt. is allowed to sell surplus vehicles to citizens without modifications to meet FMVSS, but it does not address an individual state's laws with respect to registration. If you have another document which clarifies such, I'd really like to get a copy. (BTW, the USAG is not the same as NHTSA. John Womack was with NHTSA.)

The U.S. Govt. determines whether the vehicle can be titled and sold for road use, and issues an SF-97 for those vehicles. But federal laws and policies do not address registration. As Coleman Sachs, USDOT/NHTSA Chief of Importation and Certification put it: "registration is the responsibility of the state". That's why, despite apparent conflict with federal regulations, individual states sometimes have registration problems.

Again, if you've got another letter that clarifies things, I'd really like to get a copy!

Thanks,
Paul

June 15th, 2014.
gents:

I have extracted the pertinent clause in the letter above, even if the gentlemen were discussing Ferretts, not this section which passes the exemption down to subsequent owners of US Military vehicles sold surplus. Not that it does not apply to the M151, and likely also to the later HMMWV for the same reason.

"However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance
with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual
specifications of the armed forces of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)).
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 (however, because of safety policy
considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV
vehicles)."

I do believe that if the vehicle in question was a U.S.Military vehicle built in compliance with the contract specifications, and it was inspected and accepted into U.S.Military service, the purchase contract specifications do become the only standards that vehicle ever has to meet from then on, regardless how many civilian owners own it. Of course, the EUC requirements in the Demil Code also pass down to subsequent owners for the same reason, even if you are not the original owner who purchased it from the U.S.Military at auction.

I was trained at one time to be a lawyer, but I will tell you if the original letter resides in the U.S. Archives noted above, it does become the precedent so beloved of both lawyers and bureaucrats....

Kyle,

Have ya ever tried to locate the original contract specifications from the manufacturer of a vehicle, especially one that's perhaps 10 or more years old? I have. It's unobtanium. We had a GM engineer testify in court (by phone) that such documents are no longer available, at least through GM. All manufacturers dispose of those documents as soon as they legally can. Without the original contract specifications, you have nothing pertinent to a specific vehicle. We did manage to get the court to accept the MIL-SPEC document from '85 however, which in a general sense clarified that "tired" (non tracked) vehicles up to and including 5-ton met FMVSS. But that did not address whether a former military vehicle could be registered by a state for a civilian.

Read what it says. It says that NHTSA excuses the vehicle from FMVSS compliance requirements, and that the U.S. armed forces may sell that vehicle without making further modifications. It does not state that the vehicle can be registered by a civilian. The inference is that the vehicle can then be licensed by a secondary owner, but that is not written. Regardless, this is all a federal matter and has no bearing on whether an individual state's laws allow or prohibit registration of the vehicle.

In Wisconsin, the DMV interpreted state law such that a vehicle without a FMVSS-compliance label was determined to be an "off-highway vehicle". This meant that any vehicle which lacked a cert. label was considered an off-highway vehicle and could not be registered. This was all (including the Tolliday letter) discussed in my appeal, and if you wish, you can read the decision here: http://www.doa.state.wi.us/documents/dha/Decisions/DOT/2008/tr080027.pdf While this was not a former U.S. military vehicle, is was similarly exempted from FMVSS (due to being older than 25 years old when imported). My truck even had a valid Colorado title, and I bought it from a licensed Colorado Motor Vehicle Dealer. The court did not recognize the federal exemption from FMVSS as being a determining factor.

The same DOT attorney made the same argument with respect to the U.S. govt. GM pickup before the same judge in another case, and initially won his case. We managed to get it overturned with the MIL-SPEC documents and the judge ordered the truck registered. But that only effected vehicles 10,000#gvw and less. It took passage of a new law to clear up the larger trucks for registration.I'm not saying that letter wouldn't possibly make the case in some court/s. But it did not have that effect here in Wisconsin.

I'd also question whether the demil code actually passed on to a second owner. In '07, a guy in Wis. had 15 Humvee titles cancelled when WisDMV discovered that the trucks did not have 17-digit VINs nor Cert. labels. If you can't get titles, then you can't get registration, so in effect the vehicle remains "demil'd".

June 16th, 2014.

Could it be that the original inspector's stamp on the Data Plate could be proven as acceptance of the vehicle to serve in the military in its designed role, as inspectors in the military do not stamp equipment that does not pass contract inspection. It should not require the contract itself, just the inspection marks and the bill of sale from DRMO or GL to prove that it came from military service. Almost every data plate I have seen has stamped in it "U.S.Government Property". Also the 17 digit VIN is a fairly recent aberration, as I can think of 15,000,000 Model T's that did not have it, and about 1,000,000 are still operable or are operating, many on current licenses, not just antique plates.

I would plan a legal campaign on that case alone, if it were needed, because the reaction to the unreimbursed seizure of that much property would be a newsman's delight, and an internet storm. The case may be made that both Texas and Illinois recognizes the FMV or OMV as a legitimate category of vehicle in their state statutes. Now lets force the hands of some more state legislatures to copy those laws, it should make life a lot more interesting.

In either case, good luck, as Uncle Sam's powers exceeds those of the states, as he inherited the King's Right in all things not delegated by him to the states.

The state law needs to be changed. The statement about providing proof to the DMV will kill you every time. I am not sure who is working on trying to get the law changed but between myself and undysworld you have a lot of experience available to help get the law changed. Now is the time to start working on getting the support and players you are going to need to make the change. I have all the documentation that can provide guidance on how to present.

I don't think that proving military provenance is the issue. With regard to registration, I think it's FMVSS compliance as signified by a Certification Label or proven otherwise.

At least in the Wis. cases, the issue was vehicles without Certification labels (signifying compliance with FMVSS). I don't think any inspector's stamp would be sufficient, unless you could somehow find the contract specs for that particular truck. Because without proving that that particular contract required FMVSS compliance, you'd only be confirming that the vehicle was built to A government contract and thus exempted from FMVSS (but not that the vehicle meets FMVSS regardless of the presence of a label). But that's not to say that it couldn't be argued.

And yes, the obvious inequity of only applying this to former military vehicles, but not pre-10/1/1969 (the effective date of the federal cert. label requirement) vehicles (like Model T's), is glaring.

As to the standard 17-digit VIN, I believe it was instituted in the early '80's, but not really comprehensively until around 1986. While current VIN-identification software can identify a "compliant" VIN of a vehicle which was built to meet FMVSS, most former military vehicles do not have a 17-digit VIN. (Another potential problem, as is the case with GM pickups and blazers, is a "D" in the 4th digit which signifies that it was built on a run of govt. contract vehicles. WisDMV formerly considered this as evidence that the vehicle was an "off-highway vehicle".)

Remember, the IA law prohibits both titling and registration of vehicles that don't have a Cert. Label (that's what the reference is to fed. law in the IA law). Registration is a state responsibility and authority. But titling is mandated by Federal law, as is the issuance of an SF-97 in the case of a Motor Vehicle (as defined by NHTSA: designed for on-highway use). That's where I'd argue that state law is forcing Iowa DMV to break Fed. law, so the state law needs to be amended to conform with Fed. law.

What happens in Iowa if a guy from Wisconsin with his legally registered and titled deuce & 1/2 comes driving through? It's legal for the Wisconsin guy due to state reciprocity laws. But the Iowa guy can't do it legally?

What if the guy from Wisconsin with his legally registered and titled deuce & 1/2 moves to Iowa? Now he can't even get the thing titled to show that he owns it (and thus be able to resell it)? The U.S. Constitution specifies that each state must recognize documents (deeds, marriage licenses, wills, etc.) from other states, but Iowa gets to just ignore that?

At a minimum, they are leaving themselves open to appeal cases, I'd think.

Someone in your statehouse must care about this, at least if you let 'em know.