WA state cancelling MV titles

[rawr]

Washington DOL just sent me a letter cancelling my LMTV title for not complying with FMVSS. I got it registered with a FL title (I never had an SF97 since gov planet gives you the option of just getting a title). I was hoping to have an attorney proofread my response. Does anyone have recommendations for an attorney familiar with RCW title 46/Title 204 in the Seattle area?

Cheers

 

[simp5782]

Washington DOL just sent me a letter cancelling my LMTV title for not complying with FMVSS. I got it registered with a FL title (I never had an SF97 since gov planet gives you the option of just getting a title). I was hoping to have an attorney proofread my response. Does anyone have recommendations for an attorney familiar with RCW title 46/Title 204 in the Seattle area?

Cheers

@TMOMW probably has some information to help you.

 

[rcamacho]

Crap.
WSDOT is ridiculous on this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TomTime]

Washington DOL just sent me a letter cancelling my LMTV title for not complying with FMVSS. I got it registered with a FL title (I never had an SF97 since gov planet gives you the option of just getting a title). I was hoping to have an attorney proofread my response. Does anyone have recommendations for an attorney familiar with RCW title 46/Title 204 in the Seattle area?

Cheers

I hope you get something worked out, I really feel your pain.

I got a title through GovPlanet and was able to get a Maryland title and a temporary registration plate and registration card to be able to drive it to get inspected.
Got to the inspection station and was told I don’t have a 17 digit VIN and that it does not comply with FMCSS regulations.
No tags no drive.

 

[KN6KXR]

Well I'm not sure about WA but where I'm at in CA we have the same issues. That said I was able to get it done. The problem with CA is they make everyone commercial (every truck even pickups) so they force that route before you can do anything else. This triggers the FMVSS requirement. I had two DMV's turn me away after wasting tons of my time. I used the papers to get a CHP inspection and after that worked with a private paperwork guy. I don't know how he did it but I got commercial title and a temporary plate number because I non-op the vehicle straight away (weight fees on a wrecker in CA were going to be over $2k/year). Then I applied for historical plates. It took them a few months but I got them. There are no weight fees with historical I think it's just a couple hundred a year for tags.

People ask me if I can only drive it in parades and such. That's not true. The law says it has to be used for historical activities (clubs, rallies, shows) a majority of the time which I take to mean over 50%. I do things like help friends pull logs for firewood and my position is I'm exercising the vehicle in accordance with the published TM's and I'm willing to show up in court with said TM's outlining the care of the vehicle. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.....

It occurs to me that going historical plated is the best bet for you guys in WA just like here in CA. (They have been out pulling HMMWV plates here because of this requirement. Said they were issued in error and it's an off road vehicle only.) If it's historically plated does the FMVSS requirement apply? I don't see how it could if it's in the same bucket as a Model A.

Only other way around this is to get a truck before 1968. That's the year the FMVSS requirements came into play. So anything 1967 or before is fine. Don't know what the WA form looks like but the CA form is called a REG31 and there's a little box that said "pre 1968" and that is that. I'll bet WA is similar. I had a bobbed deuce (technically an XM381A2) built for me by Boyce and had them pick me a 1966. Got all my forms together (weight, application, Utah title, etc..) and walked out of the DMV with commercial plates. One visit no appointment show and go.

Not sure if that's helpful or not. Hopefully coming from somebody who navigated probably the worst state for this it was helpful. On the bright side you guys don't have to pass a background check and give a thumbprint to buy ammunition. CA is freaking ridiculous.....

 

[rawr]

Could anyone send me an image of an SF-97 for an LMTV that was registered in Washington (I Do NOT need personal/vin info, just anything referencing highway use) I am curious what specific language satisfies WSDOL?

It is interesting to me that one state can title a vehicle from an SF-97 (Which is then destroyed) If you move to another state they then require that SF-97 again. I think I could get this done if there was a way to get an SF-97 but I bought my LMTV from a re-seller with a title already

Re Collector registration, my preference is not to do that as I do a lot of driving/and as far as i know that bill is stalled in WA.

 

[KN6KXR]

Huh. Why do you need an SF97 if you already have an out of state title? State reciprocity rules apply if you have an out of state title. Has WA decided they will not honor vehicle titles from the other 49 states and that their rules take precedence over federal ones? I think not. Sounds to me like you got the runaround like I did. Go to another location or work directly with the state level.....

 

[rawr]

Huh. Why do you need an SF97 if you already have an out of state title? State reciprocity rules apply if you have an out of state title. Has WA decided they will not honor vehicle titles from the other 49 states and that their rules take precedence over federal ones? I think not. Sounds to me like you got the runaround like I did. Go to another location or work directly with the state level.....

I got a road legal title in WA, they just sent me a letter cancelling it. WA requests the SF97 as proof of compliance with the FMVSS its silly

 

[Mullaney]

I got a road legal title in WA, they just sent me a letter cancelling it. WA requests the SF97 as proof of compliance with the FMVSS its silly

.
AND somebody needs to help the local government napoleons understand that the SF97 is a document from our "Big National Guberment" that releases the truck from the military to its first civilian owner. You can't go back and get the SF97 form a second time or get a new one for an old truck.

 

[Spoonerist]

Good morning,

I may be jumping through this hoop soon. Your thread encouraged me to search. Found this: https://www.semasan.com/legislative...ntroduces-bill-allow-military-vehicle-titling

Cheers,

Spoon

 

[Mullaney]

Good morning,

I may be jumping through this hoop soon. Your thread encouraged me to search. Found this: https://www.semasan.com/legislative...ntroduces-bill-allow-military-vehicle-titling

Cheers,

Spoon

.
I would say that recruiting everybody you know in Washington State to send a letter to your elected officials in support of HB 1439 will help. SEMA is involved and if you can toss support for them as well - another plus there as well.

 

[EMD567]

Does the state tell you what parts of the FMVSS the truck fails? Is it lighting? Or something else?

 

[Spoonerist]

I’m planning to farm license mine, but I’m in a unique situation out in BFE.

 

[rawr]

Does the state tell you what parts of the FMVSS the truck fails? Is it lighting? Or something else?

Ill find out today when i chat em up

 

[KN6KXR]

No military truck is ever going to meet FMVSS. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are things like crash ratings, air bags, seat belt style and type, etc... It never has and never will happen with MV's. The only reason they have "DOT similar" lighting is so they can traverse public roads and not cause a hazard. Even at that they require a switch for purposeful operation. The state raising the requirement is a death sentence to commercial road titles for MV's and the AUTHORITIES ARE WELL AWARE OF THIS.

What we are going to wind up with is non commercial. Collector, historic, etc.. I'm okay with that if they allow us to use them in that type of fashion (hobby). Anybody that uses an MV for commercial isn't really smart about it as they are much more expensive to run and maintain than modern stuff anyways. It's fun is the deal.

We need to push for the exception from FMVSS for collector and historical. Just like any other pre 1968 vehicle but for all the models to current. If we don't they'll take them away. That's just what's up. Wish it were different but it's not.

 

[Mullaney]

No military truck is ever going to meet FMVSS. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are things like crash ratings, air bags, seat belt style and type, etc... It never has and never will happen with MV's. The only reason they have "DOT similar" lighting is so they can traverse public roads and not cause a hazard. Even at that they require a switch for purposeful operation. The state raising the requirement is a death sentence to commercial road titles for MV's and the AUTHORITIES ARE WELL AWARE OF THIS.

What we are going to wind up with is non commercial. Collector, historic, etc.. I'm okay with that if they allow us to use them in that type of fashion (hobby). Anybody that uses an MV for commercial isn't really smart about it as they are much more expensive to run and maintain than modern stuff anyways. It's fun is the deal.

We need to push for the exception from FMVSS for collector and historical. Just like any other pre 1968 vehicle but for all the models to current. If we don't they'll take them away. That's just what's up. Wish it were different but it's not.

.
Nicely said.
No drama, just the cold hard facts!

 

[juanprado]

I will just throw this out there that SEMA did absolutely ZERO to help us in La.

YMMV

 

[simp5782]

No military truck is ever going to meet FMVSS. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are things like crash ratings, air bags, seat belt style and type, etc... It never has and never will happen with MV's. The only reason they have "DOT similar" lighting is so they can traverse public roads and not cause a hazard. Even at that they require a switch for purposeful operation. The state raising the requirement is a death sentence to commercial road titles for MV's and the AUTHORITIES ARE WELL AWARE OF THIS.

What we are going to wind up with is non commercial. Collector, historic, etc.. I'm okay with that if they allow us to use them in that type of fashion (hobby). Anybody that uses an MV for commercial isn't really smart about it as they are much more expensive to run and maintain than modern stuff anyways. It's fun is the deal.

We need to push for the exception from FMVSS for collector and historical. Just like any other pre 1968 vehicle but for all the models to current. If we don't they'll take them away. That's just what's up. Wish it were different but it's not.

Except they do. Some vin and data plates state that they do comply with FMVSS on certain models

 

[BKubu]

I got a road legal title in WA, they just sent me a letter cancelling it. WA requests the SF97 as proof of compliance with the FMVSS its silly

The SF97 won't say anything about FMVSS compliance. I believe this is all a vestige of the off-road use only HMMWVs. That may be why the want to see the SF97...to see if it says off-road use only.

 

[rawr]

.
Nicely said.
No drama, just the cold hard facts!

I'm fairly certain this is not entirely accurate, I am not saying that MV's comply with the FMVSS, I am saying they comply with Mil-STD-1180B, which specifies MV's shall comply with applicable FMVSS standards. Wi TR-11-0016 precedent and the AM General NHTSA Letter both agree with this. Re Crash ratings, seatbelts etc Mil-STD-1180 explicitly references FMVSS as the governing standard (specificaly standard no 201 207, 208, 209, 210).

I think the key here is section 1.2 and 5.4 of Mil-STD-1180B, Excerpts below.

Re lighting, Oshkosh Mv's with blackout lights have an FMVSS compliance decal on the door stating compliance. PM me if you want to chat more on this or have concerns with my approach affecting others

"1.2 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to establish uniform requirements for incorporating Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards into military ground vehicles consistent with their military characteristics. This standard establishes uniform requirements which satisfy the intent of, and are identifiable with comparable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The provisions of this standard shall not be construed to be the only safety requirements applicable to military ground vehicles."

"5.4 Application of FMVSS. The application of specific requirements within the FMVSS’S, military wheeled vehicles designed to (a) carry 10 passengers or less and (b) have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10 000 pounds, shall comply with those requirements which apply to “passenger cars”. Military wheeled vehicles designed to carry more than 10 passengers, shall comply with those requirements which apply to “buses”. Military wheeled vehicles which have a GVWR equal to or greater than 10,000 pounds, shall comply with those requirements which apply to “trucks”.

edit - an extra 0