Trouble in Iowa with titles

[NEIOWA]

I'll post more as I get it.

Iowa DOT apparently is no longer is going to allow conversion of SF97 to Iowa title unless has a VIN and an FMVSS label (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards).

This can to me from our state forester's office. For my FD I work the DOD system for equipment from DRMS. The state forester is the conduit for title.

DOT says the Iowa Code 321.30 requires:

2. Unless otherwise provided for in this chapter, the department
or the county treasurer shall refuse registration and issuance of a
certificate of title unless the vehicle bears a manufacturer's label
pursuant to 49 C.F.R. pt. 567 certifying that the vehicle meets
federal motor vehicle safety standards.

This is communication from Iowa DOT to the State Forester's office on the subject.


From: Lefleur-Ostrum, Shelly [DOT]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 8:54 AM
To: Kantak, Gail [DNR]
Cc: Vehservices, Vscusto [DOT]; Reding, Susan [DOT]
Subject: Military Vehicles

Gail:

I discussed your concerns on the vehicle’s you are acquiring from the government surplus auctions with our assistant director. At this point the only recommendation that can be provided is to make sure the label is actually present before agreeing to buy a vehicle.

Many military vehicles are sold at government auctions….so there should be a representative at the auction who can advise which of their military vehicles have labels…and which don’t.

I mentioned that there was a bill introduced that may allow the titling and registration of some of these military vehicles that do not have Federal Labels affixed. We do not know yet what military vehicle might meet the requirements of the amendment that was introduced. If the amendment goes anywhere, an effort to try to determine (from the appropriate military authorities) which military vehicles substantially meet FMVSS. But as it stands today, we don’t think the amendment is going anywhere this year.

So, unfortunately, whether a military vehicle substantially meets FMVSS doesn’t really matter. As it stands today, such a vehicle must have the label affixed to it in order to be eligible for title/registration.

Attached are samples of conforming Federal Labels that would be affixed by the manufacturer of a motor vehicle indicating it meets FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards).

I would also like to note that vehicle with model year of 1981 and newer would consist of a 17 character VIN.

If we can be of any further assistance please contact our office at 515.237.3110.

Thank you

Shelly

 

[NEIOWA]

HF2313 is somewhere in the capital to fix the problem but apparently is stalled. The Leg is winding up the session so QUICK action is required to move this bill this year (means a wait until Jan 2013).

 

[DieselBob]

Man this kind of stuff is cropping up like weeds everywhere.

 

[ARYankee]

Man this kind of stuff is cropping up like weeds everywhere.

Sure is. It makes me nervous.

 

[emmado22]

Im glad all my stuff is registered already.

 

[clinto]

Im glad all my stuff is registered already.

Until something like WI happens and they won't renew the registration.

 

[73m819]

Until something like WI happens and they won't renew the registration.

And all it will take is ONE event even if not the MVs fault, to cause this to happen.

 

[porkysplace]

One of the other things that has not come up yet but could ,is even with the title and plate issues in wisconsin overturned , will they try to enforce the crash bar on the rear . This could affect anything not plated historic ,commercial vehicles had to be retrofited with the crash bars at somewhere around 26 inchs from the pavement. This is a federal mandate to prevent small cars from going underneth the truck.

 

[natem]

30 inches. Mine is 28 1/2 , I've had the conversation a couple of times.

 

[tcody]

Man this kind of stuff is cropping up like weeds everywhere.

Unfortunately, our Government continues to, year after year, feel less responsive to the will of it's people and more driven to inflict it's own will on the people. Thank you to those of you in the States where this is happening for fighting to protect our individual freedoms and liberties. Being here in Illinois I feel for my neighbors in Iowa and Wisconsin - on the other hand we have our own issues here.

 

[NEIOWA]

Unfortunately, our Government continues to, year after year, feel less responsive to the will of it's people and more driven to inflict it's own will on the people. Thank you to those of you in the States where this is happening for fighting to protect our individual freedoms and liberties. Being here in Illinois I feel for my neighbors in Iowa and Wisconsin - on the other hand we have our own issues here.

I hope suggesting vote early, vote often, and vote even while dead is not "political".

 

[tcody]

I hope suggesting vote early, vote often, and vote even while dead is not "political".

I will keep supporting the Iowa and Wisconsin neighbors as they advocate for legislation to protect our hobby. Thanks for all you guys do!

 

[ryan77]

This is going to happen everywhere!!!

 

[jimmyzwei]

NEIOWA let me know what i can do to help other than to thank Matt Windschitl (I see his name a lot in legislation I am in support of) and let my rep know I am in favor of this bill, all via email.

jimmyZwei

 

[undysworld]

Some thoughts for you guys to check into:

ALL vehicles, including former military vehicles, are EXEMPTED from FMVSS requirements so long as they are older than 25 years. BY FAR, the majority of former military vehicles which are sold with SF-97s are already older than 25 years old. Look up Title 49 U.S. Code section 30112.

The statute which was quoted earlier here does not seem to distinguish between the age or former-owner of the vehicle. So it would seem to prohibit registration of pre-'69 vehicles, since the federal certification label requirement took effect Oct. 1, 1969. So that statute should require Iowa DOT to refuse registration for ALL pre-69 vehicles, including civilian versions too. Have they done this? Can you appeal their arbitrary enforcement of this statute?

Former military vehicles are exempted from FMVSS compliance, under Title 49 USC sec. 571.7(c), but that does not mean that they are prohibited from FMVSS compliance.

In fact, U.S. Dept. of Defense documents clearly indicate that ALL WHEELED military vehicles up to and including the 5-ton variants were required to comply with ALL FMVSS requirements placed on civilian vehicles - see MIL-STD-1180B.

We recently won an appeal over a 1986 Blazer, with the MIL-SPEC document. Perhaps you could supply Iowa DOT with this, and see if you can't persuade them.

In the interest of stopping this plague of ignorance from spreading further, I'd be happy to share any info or advice from our recent battles in Wisconsin.

 

[undysworld]

Some further thoughts on your problems...

Another issue with the statute you quoted is the matter of the certification label itself. Federal law requires the label to be permanently applied, but that does not mean that the label must remain permanently. It means that the adhesive must be such that removal of the label destroys it.

Many labels were either paper or laminated paper, and as such they can simply erode over time. But labels can also be missing due to aggressive (military-style) cleaning, repainting over the label, or replacement of the door due to rust or accident. Replacement certification labels are not available, period. If you replace the door, the door must meet DOT standards and have a label that says so. But you cannot get a replacement certification label, no way, no how.

In Wisconsin, this very issue was recently addressed by an Appeal court judge. [Wis. D.O.A. Case# TR-11-0016] DOT argued that the owner had to prove FMVSS compliance by one of three methods: a certification label, records from the manufacturer, or submit the vehicle to FMVSS testing. An engineer from the manufacturer (General Motors) testified that such records no longer exist. Judge Kaiser wrote: "It is essentially impossible for an individual to prove a vehicle meets FMVSS without the manufacturer's build records."

The presence of a certification label suggests that the vehicle meets FMVSS (or did when new), but the absence of a certification label does not prove non-compliance with FMVSS.

Perhaps this argument will be of help with your DOT. Refer them to the Wis. court ruling, and to WisDOT for recent developments regarding former military vehicles. This sounds suspiciously like what we faced.

States definitely look at what other states do, as far as laws go. You might do well to approach your legislators with the info I've suggested and make your case. You may have to fight this legislatively like we did here.

Good luck with things.
Paul

 

[mistaken1]

Man this kind of stuff is cropping up like weeds everywhere.

Almost like a coordinated plan ........

 

[NEIOWA]

Thanks Undysworld That may be useful info.

 

[NEIOWA]

If your're in Iowa contact your House Rep and Senator. Apparently HF 2313 is being re-drafted as an amendment to HF 2229 (veterans driver’s license bill) in the House. The DOT is fully supportive of doing this. Has to make it thru the House within the next couple weeks (session should end in mid April).

Then over to the Senate on an amendment and Dems say they will support it.

 

[Deino]

Well i got what may be a good thing today. Today I got my titling documents from GL for my M1009. Instead of an SF97, they sent me an Arizona title for the truck. Now all i have to do is a title transfer, pay for a set of plates, and i'm good to go. We'll find out Monday when i go to the county courthouse to get my tags. I'll give you guys a report on how it goes.