Idaho title change!!!!!

[commofreq]

Yep! I just find it shocking that it only took one person to say, "Nope, these trucks don't meet the standards", without even looking into the standards, and the sheer amount of high-level officials that just blindly went along with it. It only took me about 45 minutes to figure out that there is no legal basis for any of this. The fact that it was only until rather recently that military vehicles were being titled and registered should have been ringing some bells. . .

 

[porkysplace]

Yep! I just find it shocking that it only took one person to say, "Nope, these trucks don't meet the standards", without even looking into the standards, and the sheer amount of high-level officials that just blindly went along with it. It only took me about 45 minutes to figure out that there is no legal basis for any of this. The fact that it was only until rather recently that military vehicles were being titled and registered should have been ringing some bells. . .

It probably only took 1 idiot demanding his "off-road only" SF-97 be turned into a on road title, while creating a big enough scene law enforcement were called . So they just put out a blanket order refusing to title or register any MV.
That's pretty much what happened in Florida and Michigan.

 

[commofreq]

Holy crap you can't be serious.

Well, worst-case scenario, I have the resources to fight a long and hard court battle should this bill not pass into law. Here in Idaho, MVs absolutely will be titled and registered one day. It's just a question of whether it will be sooner or later.

 

[porkysplace]

Holy crap you can't be serious.

Well, worst-case scenario, I have the resources to fight a long and hard court battle should this bill not pass into law. Here in Idaho, MVs absolutely will be titled and registered one day. It's just a question of whether it will be sooner or later.

There is also a recent thread on Arkansas recalling plates that have been issued and refusing new ones.

 

[commofreq]

NO!

Does this seem to you like it would be an organized effort? As in, all of these actions in different states have the same source?

 

[undysworld]

To All,

Please be advised that there are in fact TWO bills currently before the Idaho legislature.

As previously mentioned, House Bill-506 would allow civilians to register former military vehicles. You guys should be supporting HB-506.



***** WARNING *****: There is another Idaho bill which DOES NOT help you out.
This second bill allows only fire departments to use military vehicles, but does not allow them to be titled nor registered by civilians. The second bill is Senate Bill-1264.
SB-1264 does not allow civilian ownership of the vehicles.
SB-1264 does not allow titling the vehicles. Therefore, they are even less accessible to civilian owners.
You can read the bill here: https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/S1264.pdf
Follow the bill's progress here: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/S1264/
This bill is moving forward. It does not help you. You should oppose SB-1264.

If I were in your shoes, I would be contacting my legislators and OPPOSING SB-1264 and SUPPORTING HB-506.

 

[undysworld]

NO!

Does this seem to you like it would be an organized effort? As in, all of these actions in different states have the same source?

Commofreq,
Do us all a favor and google AAMVA and "best practices". Organized effort? Draw your own conclusions.
What goes on in one state absolutely effects what happens in other states.
This may even have begun here in Wis. At one time, the DMV Administrator, Lynne Judd, was also the Board Chair of the AAMVA.
It may not be an "organized effort", but there is some commonality.

 

[Awol]

Wow And here I was considering moving there (seriously). Now it needs to go on the list with states like California and Mass.

Aw, that's mean.

lol

 

[Suprman]

I havent heard any issues with Mass

 

[commofreq]

Not sure who's been staying on top of this, but good news. . . HB 506 passed the House almost unanimously a few days ago:

H0506

by TRANSPORTATION AND DEFENSE COMMITTEE

MOTOR VEHICLES – Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding the registration and use of military vehicles.

	02/07	Introduced, read first time, referred to JRA for Printing
	02/09	Reported Printed and Referred to Transportation & Defense
	02/19	Reported out of Committee with Do Pass Recommendation, Filed for Second Reading
	02/20	Read second time; Filed for Third Reading
	02/21	Read Third Time in Full – PASSED - 65-3-1 AYES – Amador, Anderson, Anderst, Armstrong, Barbieri, Bell, Blanksma, Boyle, Burtenshaw, Chaney, Cheatham, Clow, Collins, Crane, Dayley, DeMordaunt, Dixon, Ehardt, Erpelding, Gestrin, Gibbs, Giddings, Hanks, Harris, Hartgen, Holtzclaw, Horman, Kauffman, Kerby, King, Kloc(Tway), Loertscher, Luker, Malek(Patano), Manwaring, McCrostie, McDonald, Mendive, Miller, Monks, Moon, Moyle, Nate, Packer, Palmer, Perry, Raybould, Redman, Scott, Shepherd, Smith, Stevenson, Syme, Thompson, Toone, Troy, VanOrden, Vander Woude, Wagoner, Wintrow, Wood, Youngblood, Zito, Zollinger, Mr. Speaker NAYS – Chew, Gannon, Rubel Absent – Kingsley House seat 5A is vacant Floor Sponsor - Boyle Title apvd - to Senate
	02/22	Received from the House passed; filed for first reading

Given the strong support for this in the House, seems like a sign of things to come from the Senate. . .

 

[87m998]

The bad news is 1264 also was passed to the senate with full support from what I read.

 

[98G]

The bad news is 1264 also was passed to the senate with full support from what I read.

What does that one do?

 

[porkysplace]

What does that one do?

Here is the PDF. of SB 1264

It pretty much only allows fire departments or government agencies to register former military vehicles that don't meet the FMVSS.

 

[commofreq]

But. . . they DO meet the FMVSS.


FMVSS under 49 CFR 571.7 (c): “(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.”

That's straight out of the FMVSS. The FMVSS exempts them. And Idaho's standards are the FMVSS. Which means if the FMVSS exempts them, so does Idaho. It's a guaranteed win in a court case, if it comes to that. And I will absolutely sue for my title.


Oh, by the way, HB 506 is going to be amended somehow, it looks like:

03/02

Reported out of committee; to 14th Order for amendment

 

[undysworld]

But. . . they DO meet the FMVSS.


FMVSS under 49 CFR 571.7 (c): “(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.”

That's straight out of the FMVSS. The FMVSS exempts them. And Idaho's standards are the FMVSS. Which means if the FMVSS exempts them, so does Idaho. It's a guaranteed win in a court case, if it comes to that. And I will absolutely sue for my title.

IMHO, you're wrong and right. (But you know how opinions are...)

Being exempted from a requirement is not the same as meeting the requirement. You would be correct in stating that it meets all applicable requirements, but you still haven't proven that it meets all of the requirements.
But being exempted from a requirement does not preclude meeting the requirement. The vehicle may still meet those requirements, even though it is not required to meet them.
If Idaho's law requires compliance with FMVSS, but doesn't acknowledge the exemption, then I expect the court might not side with you. Idaho DOT administers Idaho law only.

But proving contractually-required compliance with FMVSS-equivalent requirements has already been done. The MIL-STD-1180-B document has already been accepted by a Wis. court as demonstrating that FMVSS and the MIL-STD requirements are the same. Other courts would typically consider this prior ruling.

That said, I wish you luck in proving your argument. The more ways this is proved, the better. How it gets resolved is of less consequence than that it does get resolved.

 

[commofreq]

Exactly. There's nothing in the Idaho code which says, "These are the parts of the FMVSS that Idaho does not acknowledge".

Idaho adopted the FMVSS in its entirety. To include the exemption.

So right now, Idaho code pretty much says, "What's in the FMVSS is the law of the land here in Idaho". What the DoT in Idaho has done, is it skipped over that part of the FMVSS that exempts military vehicles, without any legislation to back them. I mean, they could pass legislation which says that Idaho does not acknowledge that exemption. Until they do, however, then legally, Idaho does. Or rather, should.

Here's the misunderstanding:

Idaho code considers the FMVSS (as a whole) to be the standard.
Idaho DoT considers all of the safety standards within the FMVSS to be the standard, leaving some things out.

If they're going to leave some things out, then they need to amend the Idaho code to allow them to do so. Because right now, they're breaking the law.

 

[undysworld]

Well, perhaps.

Here's a download version of FMVSS by year, direct from NHTSA: https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/communications/pdf/Lives-Saved-Tech-Timeline.pdf
EDIT: Please not how FEW FMVSS requirements apply to a 1971 truck!

I don't find anything in there about the exemption - just the actual equipment requirements and the year each took effect.

The FMVSS-exemption IS found in the Code of Federal Regulations [49CFR571.7(c)] : https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.7

The exemption is not actually part of the FMVSS requirements, even though it pertains to it. I don't see this as Idaho leaving things out of FMVSS, so much as not adopting something that's not actually in it.

To me, it seems like re-inventing the wheel, since the MIL-STD:FMVSS correlation has already been acknowledged. But please, go ahead and give it a shot if you like. I've been wrong before.

 

[commofreq]

The exemption is not actually part of the FMVSS requirements, even though it pertains to it. I don't see this as Idaho leaving things out of FMVSS, so much as not adopting something that's not actually in it.

To me, it seems like re-inventing the wheel, since the MIL-STD:FMVSS correlation has already been acknowledged. But please, go ahead and give it a shot if you like. I've been wrong before.

You're welcome. I present to you, Idaho Code 49-107(5):

(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.

49 CFR 571.7(c) - the exemption for military vehicles - falls right in that 500-599 range. Which is why I raise an eyebrow when I read:


Idaho Code 49-123(g)

(g) Motor vehicle. Every vehicle which is self-propelled, and for the
purpose of titling and registration meets federal motor vehicle safety
standards as denned in section 49-107, Idaho Code. Motor vehicle does not
include vehicles moved solely by human power, electric personal assistive
mobility devices and motorized wheelchairs or other such vehicles that
are specifically exempt from titling or registration requirements under
title 49, Idaho Code.

The thing is, none of this is theoretical. Idaho code spells out quite clearly that vehicles that are to be registered and titled must comply with Idaho code 49-107. Idaho code 49-107 spells out quite clearly that the FMVSS is 49 CFR part 500-599. As the exemption falls within that range, Idaho code thus includes the exemption, because it has not specifically excluded it.

 

[undysworld]

Commofreq,

Good reading!

I believe you are correct. IMO, the words "under title 49 CFR part 500-599" are crucial. Without that, your situation would be different.

This is a perfect example of how important it is to read the actual statute/s involved. Each state has it's own laws, even though they are all trying to accomplish (more or less) the same thing.

I'm not an expert on each state, nor have I read each state's statutes thoroughly. The documents I'm helping to distribute can help with each state's fight, but ultimately the effort has to come from within each state.

GREAT JOB!!!

 

[BillIdaho]

I was at the last senate meeting last week. It went through with virtually no hesitation. Even the ITD guy testified they would accept the new wording. It was sent with a do-pass recommendation.
As far as the back-and-forth about the current wording in existing Idaho code.....either way, this new code will clean that up.