Idaho title change!!!!!

[BillIdaho]

I was just advised by Alex at Idaho Motor Pool, he can no longer title anything newer than 1967! Apparently the State decided to change things up. Something about no FMVSS stickers.

 

[undysworld]

I was just advised by Alex at Idaho Motor Pool, he can no longer title anything newer than 1967! Apparently the State decided to change things up. Something about no FMVSS stickers.

Maybe older than 1967? The Certification Label requirement first took effect in 1969, so if he's concerned about vehicles that don't have the FMVSS-compliance certification labels then he's mistaken on the dates.

FYI: FMVSS came about as a result of the National Traffic and Highway Safety Act of 1966. The very first FMVSS took effect in 1967, but most of them took effect in 1968. A year later, the requirement for the Certification Label was enacted. But there are some huge flaws in their argument.

First off, motor vehicles built prior to 1967 all had to meet the equipment requirements in effect for their date of manufacture. For instance, brake lights were required prior to FMVSS. Those vehicles were all fully legal when they were built. Since FMVSS does not apply retroactively, those vehicles built prior to 1967 still meet all applicable federal standards (assuming they are in good repair)

The presence of a Certification Label suggests that the vehicle was built to meet FMVSS, but a lack of Certification Label does not guarantee that the vehicle does not meet FMVSS. Certification Labels are located on the driver's door. If you replace the driver's door (accident, rust, etc.) you must buy a DOT-compliant door, but that new door does not have a FMVSS-compliance Certification Label on it. The label can only be applied by the vehicle manufacturer when the vehicle is new. So even vehicles built after 1969 might not have a Certification Label.

Any vehicle built to meet FMVSS can go out of compliance at any time. If your headlight burns out, it's out of FMVSS compliance.

This was the same argument WisDOT used to kick all ex-military vehicles off the road in 2009. I suspect that the problem lies within state law, and it may require you to correct things legislatively like we did. Can you get them to identify the state law they are citing?

 

[EasternEmpire]

Here it is on official ITD-DMV stationary. Start talking to your legislators - the 2018 session opens in 3 weeks.

 

[aleigh]

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

 

[wheelspinner]

THIS is what happens when elected officials feel no need to act on our behalf. Complaining on the internet, or anti-social media does nothing. CONTACT your legislator directly, often and assertively.

 

[undysworld]

I'll toss out a few facts that are applicable.

The "25-year FMVSS exemption" DOES pertain to all vehicles, not just gray-market (imported) vehicles. It is codified in Title 49 Transportation Subtitle VI Part A Chapter 301 Section 30112 [Title 49 30112] and reads: "(b) Nonapplication. - This section does not apply to - (9) a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old". That's it, that's all it says. It does not specify that it only applies to gray-market vehicles. So it applies to ALL motor vehicles that are older than 25 years old.

Vehicles built for U.S. Govt. contracts are required to meet equipment standards that are equivalent to those for civilian vehicles. MIL-STD 1180B has been acknowledged by the Wisconsin Dept. of Admin., Div. of Hearings and Appeals as establishing that U.S. Military vehicles (up to and including 5-ton variants) are contractually required to meet MIL-STD equipment standards that are EXACTLY the same as FMVSS equipment standards that apply to civilian vehicles. [Wis. DOA Case TR-11-0016] Amazingly, no online record of this decision exists anymore, but I can supply a copy on request.

 

[EasternEmpire]

To be fair, these statutes have been on the books for quite a while. I would suspect that questions referenced in the letter led to research that led to the rediscovery of the statutes. Being a bureaucrat myself, i understand how this sort of thing works - I also understand how frustrating this sort of thing can be to citizens.

Undysworld, I'll PM you my email address. I would appreciate a scanned copy of the decision in Wisconsin you mention.

 

[M813rc]

From years of bureaucratic experience, my reading of the wording in that document implies that they are quietly encouraging folks to get legislation passed to allow the continued registration of military vehicles.
The not revoking previously issued registration, and actually allowing the transfer of previously registered vehicles to a new owner, is also a good sign, it means they are not actively against military vehicles.

Folks working for bureaucracies don't necessarily like the rules, but have to follow and enforce them; and at the same time, they cannot tell you directly that they don't like the rules. But they can quietly hint about what needs to be done on your part to fix it.

Hopefully this will just be a task for y'all, not a battle. Good luck!

Cheers

 

[undysworld]

my reading of the wording in that document implies that they are quietly encouraging folks to get legislation passed to allow the continued registration of military vehicles.
The not revoking previously issued registration, and actually allowing the transfer of previously registered vehicles to a new owner, is also a good sign, it means they are not actively against military vehicles.

Yeah, that was my read on it too. A couple comments on this:
In the case of a newly imported former military vehicle, the first DOT office to issue a US state title should request the importation documents that show that the vehicle was legally imported. (Once the initial U.S. state title has been issued, requesting these importation documents for subsequent title issuance is not okay.)
In the case of a former U.S. military vehicle, the first DOT office to issue a U.S. state title should request the titling documents (SF-97) that the U.S. govt. provides to show that the vehicle is intended for on-road use.
Honoring out-of-state issued titles is proper.
I find "specialty off-road vehicles", defined as "any vehicle manufactured, designed or constructed exclusively for off-highway operation that does not fit the definition of an all-terrain vehicle, utility type vehicle or motorbike" https://parksandrecreation.idaho.go...ite/OHV Laws, Rules and Requirements_2011.pdf I assume that is somewhere in code. However, it should be easy to demonstrate that most tired (non-tracked) former military vehicles were not built exclusively for off-highway operation.
Idaho Code 49-402(10) appears to also prohibit the registration of pre-'69 vehicles (pre-FMVSS), vehicles with a replaced driver door (lack FMVSS Certification Label), or any vehicle with a burned-out light (no longer FMVSS-compliant).

 

[aleigh]

From years of bureaucratic experience, my reading of the wording in that document implies that they are quietly encouraging folks to get legislation passed to allow the continued registration of military vehicles.
The not revoking previously issued registration, and actually allowing the transfer of previously registered vehicles to a new owner, is also a good sign, it means they are not actively against military vehicles.

Yeah I wondered that. Maybe they are just tired of the ambiguity, or someone new came in and realized they had a habit of doing something that wasn't strictly speaking (in their view) legal, and they want it cleaned up.

 

[JDToumanian]

Doesn't GP offer a Florida title for an additional fee above the cost of an SF-97? By that letter, a FL title would be transferable to ID.

Also, I'm pretty sure you can go crawling back to GP after passing on their FL title and they'll still sell you one... Mail them back the SF-97 and they'll get it done. A legislative change would be nice. but there's a simple workaround available now.

Jon

 

[aleigh]

The way I read it, ID was grandfathering trucks already registered in ID... A new FL title is not going to help that, since the transfer would be a new registration (in ID).

 

[undysworld]

Doesn't GP offer a Florida title for an additional fee above the cost of an SF-97? By that letter, a FL title would be transferable to ID.

A title only shows ownership, and it can be branded with restrictions.

A while ago, I called GP and asked about the titles they offered, in regard to a certain smallish U.S. vehicle (which shall remain unnamed). I was told that titles could be obtained for some vehicles which were only sold for off-road for the purpose of showing ownership, but the title was branded Off-Road Only, or some such thing. Whether Idaho would then issue a clear unrestricted title is anyone's guess, but based on this letter, my guess is "no".

Rather than trying to cheat the system, and maybe getting caught, you guys in Idaho should try to get this corrected legislatively. It's not impossible, and it's how this country is supposed​ to work.

 

[rhurey]

The way I read it, ID was grandfathering trucks already registered in ID... A new FL title is not going to help that, since the transfer would be a new registration (in ID).

Eh?

 

[undysworld]

Paragraph 4: "Vehicles of this type that are titled in another state may also be titled and registered in Idaho."

I'd interpret that to mean that a vehicle coming into Idaho with a valid out-of-state title would be able to be titled and registered in idaho.

 

[87m998]

Any new info on this? I just got my Humvee titled in Oct in Idaho with no problem. I was hoping to get more of them.

 

[EasternEmpire]

I would not be hopeful for this changing for Humvees. A few years back DoD/DLA determined that SF97s for Humvees should be issued "for offroad use only" - you would need to ask them for the rationale. This is why we quit requisitioning them for fire service organizations. Please understand that my priority here is to support Idaho's fire service organizations.

 

[undysworld]

Eastern Empire,

You never know. Here in Wisconsin, Humvees are specifically listed as being eligible for registration (and lifetime registration at that!), which wasn't always the case. This allows me be guardedly optimistic.

You are correct about recently issued SF-97 forms having been marked Offroad Only (or some such). But I believe it is likewise true that such wasn't always the case, and a few hundred Marines Humvees were sold with clear valid SF-97 forms. - See this 2011 GSA auction notice of a 1988 Humvee, which offers an SF-97 and has no "off-road" restrictions: https://gsaauctions.gov/gsaauctions/aucdsclnk?sl=61QSCI11334001 I suspect that it was sold with a clear SF-97 (?), meaning it was sold with the paperwork to register it for on-road use.

Regardless, registration is handled by state agencies authorized to administer that state's laws, so what matters is that state's laws *. If that state's laws do not prohibit registration of Humvees, and if the Humvee has a clear and valid Motor Vehicle title, then that state "should" issue registration. (If the state's laws prohibit registration of Humvees, or if the title has been marked "off-road only", etc., then that's a different story.)

* Sometimes, a state's law/s refer to a federal requirement (such as FMVSS-compliance or the Certification Label requirement), so even though the state agency is not authorized to administer the federal law, the state agency (DMV) can enforce their state law which is contingent on that federal rule. (Confused yet? )

My view is: If a vehicle was sold for on-road use with a valid clear SF-97 or it has a valid clear title, and that vehicle is in good repair and meets the state's equipment laws, then it seems reasonable to think that it could be registered. What appears to be needed in Idaho, is a legislative change to Idaho law, to allow for the registration of Humvees that have valid clear titles or valid clear SF-97s. These guys aren't asking to register illegal, or inherently unsafe vehicles, they're just hoping to amend their state's law so that vehicles that were sold for on-road use can be registered in Idaho, and so I wish them the best.

 

[commofreq]

Any new info on this? I just got my Humvee titled in Oct in Idaho with no problem. I was hoping to get more of them.

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.

 

[commofreq]

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?