Idaho title change!!!!!

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

Also, here's what I sent to the Idaho DMV board secretary just moments ago (in reference to the letter which EasternEmpire posted on page 1 of this thread):



__________________________

Dear Sue,

Currently, the Idaho DMV is not registering or titling decommissioned military vehicles. In a letter dated 16 November 2017 (please see attachment), Alberto Gonzales provides the reasoning for this decision citing both state and federal law. The key argument which was made, was that “The 25-year FMVSS exemption only pertains to grey market (imported) vehicles.”

The citation provided at the bottom of his letter was 49 U.S. Code § 30112 (b9) “ – 25-year FMVSS exemption for imported vehicles”. For clarity, the subsection reads as follows:

“( 9 ) a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old; or”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30112

This provision makes no mention of an importation requirement. While there are other parts of 49 U.S. Code § 30112 that also offer other exemptions for imported vehicles, (b9) clearly applies to all vehicles as no other criteria beyond being at least 25 years old was included. It is for this reason that Idaho Code 49-402(10) does not apply to many of these vehicles (those which are at least 25 years old), as they are covered under the 49 U.S. Code § 30112 (b9) exemption.



There’s another reason why Idaho Code 49-402(10) (“Vehicles that do not meet FMVSS shall not be registered”) does not apply to such vehicles. To be sure, Idaho Code 49-107(5) defines the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS):

(5) "Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS)" means those safety standards established by the national highway traffic safety administration, under title 49 CFR part 500-599, for the safe construction and manufacturing of self-propelled motorized vehicles for operation on public highways. Such vehicles as originally designed and manufactured shall be so certified by the manufacturer to meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards or the standards in force for a given model year or as certified by the national highway traffic safety administration.

With this in mind, 49 CFR 571.7 (c) specifically exempts military vehicles from FMVSS applicability:

“(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.7

Since decommissioned military vehicles clearly fit this description, they are exempted from FMVSS requirements. Note that no criteria exists in this provision which states that this exemption only applies as long as the vehicle is owned by the military, nor are there any criteria which revokes this exemption upon the vehicle’s sale to the general public. Therefore, decommissioned military vehicles under this provision are FMVSS compliant. This means that Idaho Code 49-402(10) does not apply to these vehicles. If I had to guess on the reasoning behind this, it would be “if they’re safe enough for the military to operate on highways, they’re safe enough for civilians to operate on highways – the operator has nothing to do with the vehicle’s characteristics”.

I respectfully request that the board review the Idaho DMV’s stance on the titling and registration of decommissioned military vehicles in Idaho, and the legalities thereof. I believe that sufficient legislation exists which legally permits the Idaho DMV to title and register these vehicles and that the current policy had been implemented erroneously.


Very Respectfully,
(Me)

_______________________________________

At minimum, this should get them talking, you think?

Please keep us abreast of any replies and/or changes by posting to this same thread. The Members subscribed to this thread will therefore be automatically notified of your updates.
Thank you.

 

[87m998]

I just went in person with all the doc's and more to the DMV in PR, but that was before this letter came out. I believe things work better if you go in person and stay away from the CA's in Sandpoint.

 

[commofreq]

Yeah, my title never arrived from Montana. So I have to fight that battle first. Meanwhile, I'm fighting this stupid (and most likely, illegal) policy for those trucks that don't have any title.

 

[porkysplace]

Would like to know how you did that. I just got one from Montana and since I know nothing about how this works (they said they'd send the title electronically to Bonner County), I sent an inquiry through the online DMV about what to do next, and they're already giving me a hard time.

It's titled in Montana, but I don't have it physically in my possession. . . that is to say.

Private sale or GP ?

 

[commofreq]

Got it from an equipment dealership. They still haven't taken it off of their website, actually: http://www.equipmentpls.com/inventory/?/listings/trucks/for-sale/6249903/1989-am-general-m998?dlr=1&pcid=2001389224

 

[Suprman]

I would think the dealership would be responsible for making sure you have the proper paperwork. If they can't provide a title or transferrable reg then they should take the truck back. Most states have DMV enforcement units tasked with keeping dealerships on the up and up.

 

[BillIdaho]

At the Idaho State capitol, a new bill making a provision to deal with titling military vehicles (H506 I think) made it through one vote, and is going over for a vote on the other side, as of yesterday (02-16-1.

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

Got it from an equipment dealership. They still haven't taken it off of their website, actually: http://www.equipmentpls.com/inventory/?/listings/trucks/for-sale/6249903/1989-am-general-m998?dlr=1&pcid=2001389224

Thanks for guiding us to the pics.

HOWEVER, that link, as you have hinted, WILL DIE.
THEREFORE, the SS web-gurus have a rule that offsite pics instead be uploaded here so that the content is permanent and won't be lost at the whim or policy of other web hosts.
HENCE, to preserve those pics for future visitors to view, learn from, ogle and drool over please copy and upload them and post them here.
That would be most helpful to the masses - most of whom (including me) love to look at pics!

This is so "important" here that we even have this - - -

Thanks !

 

[undysworld]

Yup, it's House Bill 506: https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0506.pdf
Follow the progress here: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0506/

All you guys (and gals) in Idaho, PHONE your representatives and urge them to support this effort!


Push! Push! Push!

​

Here's a link to Find YOUR Idaho Legislators: https://legislature.idaho.gov/legislators/whosmylegislator/

​

 

[commofreq]

Thanks for guiding us to the pics.
HENCE, to preserve those pics for future visitors to view, learn from, ogle and drool over please copy and upload them and post them here.
That would be most helpful to the masses - most of whom (including me) love to look at pics!

This is so "important" here that we even have this - - -
Thanks !

I'll just upload my own once I get this thing converted over. Already have the troop seats out.

 

[commofreq]

Yup, it's House Bill 506: https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0506.pdf
Follow the progress here: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0506/

​

Beautiful! I will send them this information as well. It seems that there are quite a few officials here in Idaho who can't open up a book and read the actual laws.

 

[commofreq]

Yup, it's House Bill 506: https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0506.pdf
Follow the progress here: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0506/

​

Beautiful! I have emailed the Idaho Transportation and Defense committee the following:



Dear Transportation and Defense Committee,

I surmise that no other bill brings together the two roles of this committee as House Bill 506 – legislation authorizing the titling and registration of decommissioned military vehicles which have been sold to the general public. There are a few things that I would like to bring to your attention as this bill advances through the legislation process. I’ve researched this matter and it appears that sufficient legislation currently exists which permits the Idaho DOT to authorize the titling and registration of these vehicles. As a result, the decision to withhold titling and registration of military vehicles in Idaho, I feel, was made in error. The results of my research are as follows:


1. Decommissioned military vehicles are in fact, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) compliant, and thus, Idaho Code 49-402 (10) compliant.

The reasoning for restricting military vehicles from Idaho’s highways, was that the Idaho Department of Transportation has decided that they are not FMVSS compliant. Currently, Idaho’s legislative position on vehicle safety is the formal adoption of the FMVSS standards. Idaho Code 49-107(5) defines its use of the FMVSS quite clearly:

(5) Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS)" means those safety standards established by the national highway traffic safety administration, under title 49 CFR part 500-599, for the safe construction and manufacturing of self-propelled motorized vehicles for operation on public highways. Such vehicles as originally designed and manufactured shall be so certified by the manufacturer to meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards or the standards in force for a given model year or as certified by the national highway traffic safety administration.


However, the FMVSS under 49 CFR 571.7 (c) states that its safety standards do not apply to military vehicles:

“(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.7

Since decommissioned military vehicles clearly fit this description, they are therefore FMVSS compliant. Note that no additional criteria are included which suggests that this exemption is nullified upon the sale of military vehicles to the general public, nor are there any criteria which states that this exemption only applies as long as the vehicles are owned by the military. The Department of Transpiration has erroneously decided that military vehicles must meet the safety standards as otherwise outlined in the FMVSS , and as a result, Idaho Code 49-402(10) prohibits their use on Idaho’s highways. The FMVSS itself states that military vehicles are exempted from its own standards and Idaho Code states that vehicles must be FMVSS compliant.



2. The 25-year exemption applies to all vehicles.

Another reason which has been offered by the Idaho Department of Transportation for withholding the titling and registration of some decommissioned military vehicles is that it had been determined that the 25-year FMVSS exemption under 49 U.S. Code § 30112 (b9) applies only to imported vehicles. Under this exemption, such vehicles which are 25 years old or older are not required to meet the FMVSS standards.

However, there is a very clear misinterpretation of this provision. To be sure, 49 U.S. Code § 30112 (b9) reads as follows:

“( 9 ) a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old; or”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30112

There are clearly no importation requirements in this provision. The entirety of 49 U.S. Code § 30112 is merely a list of various exemptions, some of which do apply to imported vehicles. Part (b9) applies to all vehicles as written. Given that the FMVSS (as first noted in this letter) specifically exempts all military vehicles, this point is moot anyway. Nevertheless, it’s important to note that domestic military vehicles which are 25 years old and older are exempted twice.



I think that as written, House Bill 506 agrees with the decision that was made by the Idaho Department of Transportation, and seeks to overturn it by legislative process without justification. Not only is the above information sufficient justification, it actually proves that sufficient legislation already exists which authorizes the titling and registration of decommissioned military vehicles in Idaho. Should the bill meet a significant degree of resistance in the legislative process, I hope that this information will be useful should it need to be amended in the future.


Very Respectfully,

(Me)

 

[porkysplace]

Beautiful! I have emailed the Idaho Transportation and Defense committee the following:



Dear Transportation and Defense Committee,

I surmise that no other bill brings together the two roles of this committee as House Bill 506 – legislation authorizing the titling and registration of decommissioned military vehicles which have been sold to the general public. There are a few things that I would like to bring to your attention as this bill advances through the legislation process. I’ve researched this matter and it appears that sufficient legislation currently exists which permits the Idaho DOT to authorize the titling and registration of these vehicles. As a result, the decision to withhold titling and registration of military vehicles in Idaho, I feel, was made in error. The results of my research are as follows:


1. Decommissioned military vehicles are in fact, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) compliant, and thus, Idaho Code 49-402 (10) compliant.

The reasoning for restricting military vehicles from Idaho’s highways, was that the Idaho Department of Transportation has decided that they are not FMVSS compliant. Currently, Idaho’s legislative position on vehicle safety is the formal adoption of the FMVSS standards. Idaho Code 49-107(5) defines its use of the FMVSS quite clearly:

(5) Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS)" means those safety standards established by the national highway traffic safety administration, under title 49 CFR part 500-599, for the safe construction and manufacturing of self-propelled motorized vehicles for operation on public highways. Such vehicles as originally designed and manufactured shall be so certified by the manufacturer to meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards or the standards in force for a given model year or as certified by the national highway traffic safety administration.


However, the FMVSS under 49 CFR 571.7 (c) states that its safety standards do not apply to military vehicles:

“(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.7

Since decommissioned military vehicles clearly fit this description, they are therefore FMVSS compliant. Note that no additional criteria are included which suggests that this exemption is nullified upon the sale of military vehicles to the general public, nor are there any criteria which states that this exemption only applies as long as the vehicles are owned by the military. The Department of Transpiration has erroneously decided that military vehicles must meet the safety standards as otherwise outlined in the FMVSS , and as a result, Idaho Code 49-402(10) prohibits their use on Idaho’s highways. The FMVSS itself states that military vehicles are exempted from its own standards and Idaho Code states that vehicles must be FMVSS compliant.



2. The 25-year exemption applies to all vehicles.

Another reason which has been offered by the Idaho Department of Transportation for withholding the titling and registration of some decommissioned military vehicles is that it had been determined that the 25-year FMVSS exemption under 49 U.S. Code § 30112 (b9) applies only to imported vehicles. Under this exemption, such vehicles which are 25 years old or older are not required to meet the FMVSS standards.

However, there is a very clear misinterpretation of this provision. To be sure, 49 U.S. Code § 30112 (b9) reads as follows:

“( 9 ) a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old; or”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30112

There are clearly no importation requirements in this provision. The entirety of 49 U.S. Code § 30112 is merely a list of various exemptions, some of which do apply to imported vehicles. Part (b9) applies to all vehicles as written. Given that the FMVSS (as first noted in this letter) specifically exempts all military vehicles, this point is moot anyway. Nevertheless, it’s important to note that domestic military vehicles which are 25 years old and older are exempted twice.



I think that as written, House Bill 506 agrees with the decision that was made by the Idaho Department of Transportation, and seeks to overturn it by legislative process without justification. Not only is the above information sufficient justification, it actually proves that sufficient legislation already exists which authorizes the titling and registration of decommissioned military vehicles in Idaho. Should the bill meet a significant degree of resistance in the legislative process, I hope that this information will be useful should it need to be amended in the future.


Very Respectfully,

(Me)

It is usually better to address the exact problem . Your going on telling them the law already exists and they may just decide to do nothing. Do as you wish but you probably should get with the OP of this thread and get a more standard letter to send to the Reps and keep your personal arm chair legal advice out of it. Your hostile to this stituation and that will work against it passing.

 

[87m998]

I emailed my reps to please support and will see if I get a response

 

[commofreq]

It is usually better to address the exact problem . Your going on telling them the law already exists and they may just decide to do nothing. Do as you wish but you probably should get with the OP of this thread and get a more standard letter to send to the Reps and keep your personal arm chair legal advice out of it. Your hostile to this stituation and that will work against it passing.

Oh, that wasn't my intent, but if that's what you pulled from it, then it's possible they might interpret it the same way. In all, the text of the bill is actually much stronger - it basically says, "we don't care what the law says or doesn't say - we're going to make these military vehicles legal". On the downside, something like this is easily challenged in court, so I wanted to give them this info to help them make it "bullet-proof".

 

[undysworld]

1. Decommissioned military vehicles are in fact, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) compliant, and thus, Idaho Code 49-402 (10) compliant.


“(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.7

Since decommissioned military vehicles clearly fit this description, they are therefore FMVSS compliant.

I must also express concern over this argument.

FMVSS-Compliant means it met FMVSS requirements when it was manufactured.
FMVSS-Exempted means it was not required to meet FMVSS when it was manufactured.

Your argument seems to be that the vehicle is FMVSS-Compliant because it met all the FMVSS requirements that applied, ie. NONE, when it was manufactured. The problem is, a skeptic only sees that no standards applied when the vehicle was manufactured.

You can counter that FMVSS-Exempted does not require indicate non-compliance - the vehicle may still comply even if compliance is not required. But that still comes down to: "MAY COMPLY".

IMHO, the better argument is that the vehicle met MIL-STD requirements which have previously been demonstrated to be the same as FMVSS requirements. Because it met MIL-STD requirements, and because those MIL-STD requirements are the same as the FMVSS requirements, the vehicle was recognized as having met FMVSS by the court. (The case concerned a Blazer, but the same MIL-STD requirements applied to HMMWVs too.)

 

[commofreq]

I must also express concern over this argument.
Your argument seems to be that the vehicle is FMVSS-Compliant because it met all the FMVSS requirements that applied, ie. NONE, when it was manufactured. The problem is, a skeptic only sees that no standards applied when the vehicle was manufactured.
IMHO, the better argument is that the vehicle met MIL-STD requirements which have previously been demonstrated to be the same as FMVSS requirements. Because it met MIL-STD requirements, and because those MIL-STD requirements are the same as the FMVSS requirements, the vehicle was recognized as having met FMVSS by the court. (The case concerned a Blazer, but the same MIL-STD requirements applied to HMMWVs too.)

That's all well and good, but ultimately the FMVSS exemption continues to be part of the law of the land. When the vehicle was manufactured ​ has no bearing at all. A military vehicle manufactured this morning is equally as exempted as one manufactured in 1992 under this FMVSS clause.

Why is this important? Sure, Idaho has the option to require that all vehicles meet all of those standards that the FMVSS describes in those endless amount of pages, that's true. But what Idaho did instead, was take the "lazy" approach and simply said that all vehicles in Idaho must comply with the FMVSS, as a whole. And part of that whole includes this exemption clause.

From a legal perspective, this means that if the FMVSS is exempting military vehicles, then Idaho law does as well.

 

[porkysplace]

That's all well and good, but ultimately the FMVSS exemption continues to be part of the law of the land. When the vehicle was manufactured ​ has no bearing at all. A military vehicle manufactured this morning is equally as exempted as one manufactured in 1992 under this FMVSS clause.

Why is this important? Sure, Idaho has the option to require that all vehicles meet all of those standards that the FMVSS describes in those endless amount of pages, that's true. But what Idaho did instead, was take the "lazy" approach and simply said that all vehicles in Idaho must comply with the FMVSS, as a whole. And part of that whole includes this exemption clause.

From a legal perspective, this means that if the FMVSS is exempting military vehicles, then Idaho law does as well.

You have never dealt with politicians before have you?

It looks like you have a group working to get this resolved and are close , but you want to argue what the law already is to the lawmakers that can change it . So far I haven't seen anything posted about raising funds for lobbyist to get this pushed through ( politicians usually don't do anything with getting greased). Somebody sending them a letter telling them the law already exists and they are lazy and they could very well decide there is no reason to address this lawmakers don't like being told what the law is when they make them. . Now it is up to you to file a lawsuit against them because you claim the law already allows it (all the while this drags on nobody gets vehicles plated) . And the people working behind the scenes wasted their time .

This is why letters urging support need to be brief and to the point . You really should reach out to the people behind this and get a organized letter to send.

From the looks of the original DMV letter they are not against registering them they just want the lawmakers to clarify it.

Edit; maybe undysworld can explain it better , he was involved in thesolving the problems in Wisconsin which was the 1st state to ban MV's and it was not near as smooth as it is in Idaho.

 

[commofreq]

Yep. I've never worked with politicians before. But I'm learning. That's for sure.

I'm guessing they're not even going to read it, and will respond with a boiler plate once they know what it's about.

 

[porkysplace]

Yep. I've never worked with politicians before. But I'm learning. That's for sure.

I'm guessing they're not even going to read it, and will respond with a boiler plate once they know what it's about.

Some aid will scan through it maybe , that's one of the reason the shorter the better , don't confuse them.
Get what's there passed and tweek it from there. That will at least get trucks on the road again.