Off road motorcycle Q&A

Questions and answers

Q:  How did DOL discover this issue?

A:  This issue was brought to our attention by law enforcement officers. They informed the agency they had made traffic stops on public roadways involving off-road motorcycles with license plates (licensed for street use). They reported encountering motorcycles licensed for street use but without required equipment and with an “off-road use only” designation stamped on the frame. These officers questioned why these motorcycles had been licensed incorrectly.

To be eligible for Washington state registration as a street-legal vehicle, a motorcycle must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and federal emission standards.

DOL was notified by law enforcement officers who report increasing contact with operators of off-road motorcycles licensed for street use. After researching this issue, DOL learned a lack of documentation from manufacturers has existed for several years. This resulted in many motorcycles manufactured for off-road use being inappropriately licensed for street use.

Because off-road motorcycles are not certified by the manufacturer for highway use, they fall into the category of off-road vehicles. Other examples of off-road vehicles include all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), dune buggies and go-karts. None of these vehicles are eligible to be licensed for street use.

What is DOL doing about this issue?

The owners of off-road motorcycles licensed for street use are currently being notified by mail that their motorcycles are being correctly reclassified as off-road vehicles. The registrations and license plates for these motorcycles are being cancelled and new titles are being issued that will reflect these changes. Off-road vehicle permits will be issued at no charge to owners who hold a current street registration.

How can I tell if a motorcycle is certified for street use and can be licensed as a motorcycle?

Motorcycles certified for highway use are required by federal law to have a permanent label attached by the manufacturer indicating that the motorcycle is compliant with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions standards for highway use. In addition, off-road motorcycles often have the words “off-road use only” or a similar message stamped into the frame of the motorcycle. This type of message also is generally found in the owner’s manual for these types of motorcycles, on stickers applied to the rear fenders.

Under Washington Administrative Code (308-56A-110), Manufacturer’s Statements/Certificates of Origin are required to state that a vehicle is not manufactured for road use, if applicable. We have learned some manufacturers are out of compliance with this requirement. DOL continues to work with these manufacturers to bring them into compliance.

What are the federal standards a motorcycle has to meet to be licensed for street use?

To qualify for registration for street use, all types of vehicles have to be manufactured to meet the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). In addition to meeting these federal safety standards, a motorcycle licensed for street use also has to be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions regulations for motorcycles licensed for street use.

Will individuals who have been issued plates for their off-road motorcycles get to continue using them, or can they be “grandfathered”?

No, we will be reclassifying off-road motorcycles incorrectly licensed for street use as off-road vehicles. It is important to keep in mind that a license plate doesn’t make an off-road vehicle street legal. If a motorcycle without the required certifications for safety and emissions is licensed for street use, it is an illegally licensed off-road motorcycle.

Is this action the result of a change in the law?

No, DOL has not changed any laws, rules or policies related to the registration of off-road motorcycles. The agency is taking steps to better ensure compliance with existing laws.

Can I register my cycle as street legal if I add the required lights and mirrors?

No. Washington state will not reclassify an off-road motorcycle for street use, even if required lights and other safety equipment is added. To be street legal, the manufacturer of a motorcycle must certify that it meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and federal emission standards. These safety standards go far beyond the lights, mirrors, and horns contained in aftermarket kits. They regulate frame and fuel tank construction, brakes, and other components. These kits also don’t address the required certification that the engine complies with federal emission standards.

What do the MSOs and MCOs of the motorcycles you are reclassifying as off-road vehicles say?

In most cases, the MSOs related to the motorcycles we are reclassifying as off-road vehicles did not have any message about the intended use of the motorcycle, which is out of compliance with state code. In other cases, we found other messages like “competition use only.”

How come some motorcycles that had MSOs and MCOs without the required certification message were licensed for street use?

After becoming aware of this issue, we learned that staff members in vehicle licensing offices had long been accustomed to seeing the proper “off-road use only” messages on MSOs and MCOs indicating motorcycles like these are for off-road use only. When these documents didn’t have this message, the employees of these offices assumed they could be registered for street use.

What are you doing to correct this issue with reading MSOs and MCOs?

Now that we are aware of these discrepancies in the messages printed on MSOs and MCOs, vehicle licensing office employees will be looking for both off-road related messages and the appropriate manufacturer certification for highway use before a motorcycle will be registered for street use. We also are working with manufacturers who don’t currently add an “off-road use only” message to MSOs to add it when appropriate so that they are compliant with Washington Administrative Code.

Why do other states allow off road cycles to be converted to street cycles by adding kits to them?

Laws and rules can vary from state to state. Some states do allow the conversion of an off-road cycle for street use, but many others do not. Washington is among the states that do not permit the conversion of off-road vehicles for street use. In our state, a manufacturer must certify on the MSO that a motorcycle was not designed and manufactured for street use.

The dealer who sold me the motorcycle told me it could be titled for street use. What should I do?

Will DOL reimburse me for any potential value change of my motorcycle?

No, DOL is not liable for inappropriately registering a vehicle (RCW 46.16.012).

Is there going to be a refund on the registration for the cycle use class?

No, owners will receive a full-year ORV license at the time your new registration is issued. If the motorcycle was registered as both ORV and street use, then an application for refund can be submitted. A portion of the fees may be refundable.

Why are KTM brand motorcycles being targeted?

This is not an issue that only affects one brand of off-road motorcycles.DOL is working with the manufacturers of these types of vehicles to determine which of their off-road models may have been improperly licensed for street use.

Who do I contact if I have questions about the ORV registration or do not receive it?

Please contact DOL’s Refunds and Title Services unit at 360-902-3803.

You will need to contact the selling dealer to resolve the issue, the state Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Hotline (800-551-4636) or DOL’s Dealer Services Program (360-664-6475). 

194 Responses to Off road motorcycle Q&A

  1. Chad Stansbury says:

    What about out-of-state licensed motorcycles? Does this mean that since they are from another state that they are legal on our roads but one from this state are not. Sounds like double standards. Nothing like discuraging small buisnesses and wasting taxpayers dollars in this already volitial economy.

    • Shayne Downing says:

      Exactly…a total waste of tax dollars. Lets not forget that I can purchase a “chopper” frame which comes only with an MSO and construct, title, and license the bike in WA state. How can a frame manufacturer certify that the builder will adhere to the Federal Vehicle and emissions regulations? Yet, I’ve built several of these bikes and licensed them simply by putting on the proper safety equipment. Why can’t I do the same with my KTM? This is about morons that get to make laws without understanding all the facts. Look at Idaho, Montana, they’ve miraculously figured out how to make street legal ATV’s and love the revenue they generate. This is an outrage!!!

  2. Mike says:

    This is a huge waste of our hard earned taxes. The primary reason that most ORV riders outfit their motorcycles is to have the ability to connect various trails via forest service roads. Instead, now, due to the DOL’s endeavor of removing plates, riders will be forced to break the law to make connecting trails/loops.

    As a previous poster said, this will impact business both locally and nationally in outfitting bikes to ride legally on forest service roads. You will find the majority of these owners do not ride state or federal hwys.

    Please spend our money where it is needed… reducing crime, helping low-income families…not target hard working taxpayers and families.

    Mike

  3. [...] [...]

  4. Nick says:

    You did not cover bikes that Washington State Patrol did actually inspect and clear to be licensed on our state highways, during the years 1998-2000. To suggest that Washington did not take our money and do this service knowing that these were off road only bikes when they OK’d them is a bald faced lie. I want to know why you so carefully avoided this issue and acted like Washington has always had the policy they do now. For your information Washington State Patrol inspected and allowed Plating of such bikes knowing what they had been before modifications to make them comply with then existing law. In such cases Washington state should not only refund the tax and licensing monies but also the total cost of conversion since said owners would not have gone through such expense if the state would not have allowed it.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Please read my post 10-21-2010 and let me know if you have any addition info/contacts from your inquires
      Thanks

  5. Dave says:

    Two words…WEAK SAUCE. As much as I love living in Washington state, things like this make me want to move somewhere else. Thanks for going after hard working, tax-paying individuals who just want to ride their motorcycle. It’s bad enough the state stole our NOVA funds. This is just insult to injury.

  6. Jim says:

    So glad the State stepped in and corrected a very troubling issue. This menacing issue has troubled me ever since KTM started selling motorcycles. What would I ever do without the State watching over me like this, thank god (is it OK to say that?). I am more embarrased to live in Washington than ever. When speaking to friends in other states, I am the laughing-stock due to idiotic “rulings” like this.

    • Trailrider says:

      Jim has been worried about KTM selling “menacing” bikes since 1953?
      Wow Jim, you sure can hold a grudge for a long time.
      KTM has sold and continues to sell thier “menacing” 50 US state street legal bikes all over this planet, not just here in WA.

      You are an embarrasment to us all Jim. This ruling has nothing to do with your fear of orange bikes.

      • case says:

        Trailrider,
        Get a clue pal. His post was dripping with sarcasm.

  7. john schuller says:

    Please cite the RCW that “requires” manufacturer only
    equipping of motorcycles with equipment to comply with safety standards…no such law exists. I can build any old crap in he garage, properly equip it, and get a plate. I don’t buy it!!!!!

    Plate will stay on my bike. Catch me if you can bureaucrats.

    • DOL Blog says:

      State law (RCW 46.37.005) gives the Washington State Patrol the authority to:

      …adopt, apply, and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations (1) relating to proper types of vehicles or combinations thereof for hauling passengers, commodities, freight, and supplies, (2) relating to vehicle equipment, and (3) relating to the enforcement of the provisions of this title with regard to vehicle equipment, as may be deemed necessary for the public welfare and safety in addition to but not inconsistent with the provisions of this title.

      The chief of the Washington state patrol is authorized to adopt by regulation, federal standards relating to motor vehicles and vehicle equipment, issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, or any amendment to said act, notwithstanding any provision in Title 46 RCW inconsistent with such standards. Federal standards adopted pursuant to this section shall be applicable only to vehicles manufactured in a model year following the adoption of such standards.

      The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as 49 CFR 571, were adopted by the Washington State Patrol by reference in WAC 204-10-021. This spells out all of the requirements vehicles, including motorcycles, have to meet before they are eligible for street use.

      Under federal law, a motorcycle that isn’t certified by the manufacturer for on-road use by meeting all of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) is considered an off-road vehicle. An off-road motorcycle differs in fundamental ways from an on-road motorcycle; making it inappropriate and unsafe for street use. A motorcycle manufactured and certified for on-road use is required to have a label declaring the motorcycle’s FMVSS compliance permanently affixed by the manufacturer on the frame near the handlebars (CFR 49 part 567.4). If a motorcycle isn’t certified, and doesn’t have the required certification label, it can’t be licensed for on-road use.

      • john schuller says:

        WAC 204-10-021 was made effective 10/17/08.
        My motorcycle was titled and licensed as”CYC”
        since new in 2002.

        Please cite authorization to retroactively apply this WAC. effective 10/17/08

        “Motorcycles” with homemade welds and beer keg gas tanks are legal…WHAT BS! No safety issue here right??

      • john schuller says:

        AND since you bring up federal law, are you saying these CFR’s don’t apply to the other states that title and plate these bikes with the proper equipment installed? Only here in Washington huh?

        Where in Washington’s RCW or WAC’s does it say state patrol is not “allowed” to inspect and grandfather in manufactured bikes? WSP did it in 1998-2000! You pulling the plates on those WSP inspected bikes also? Safety concerns there too?

        While I’m on a rant…your use of the term
        “inappropriate” really says it all, doesn’t it? Can you define that in legal terms…maybe referenced in a WAC or RCW?
        Chapter 46.04 RCW Definitions, maybe?

        I’ll tell you whats inappropriate- denying someone the use and value of their property
        by some retroactive interpretation of the law under the guise of “safety”!!!!!!

        Moving of this state is looking better every day to this retiree.

      • tjschul says:

        Silly washington state.
        Look at California, where safety and enviroment is religion and God….

        http://www.coolthings.com/tom-wrights-street-legal-bumper-cars/

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        So DOL what you have stated here “Under federal law, a motorcycle that isn’t certified by the manufacturer for on-road use by meeting all of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) is considered an off-road vehicle” says is ALL Motorcycles in the United States of America prior to 1971 are Off-Road motorcycles. You may want to re-think what you just stated. THERE Was No REQUIREMENT prior to 1971 for a ManufactureRef.

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        What the Heck the Blog posted before I finished ?

        So DOL what you have stated here is another FALSE statement.
        I am quoting you DOL “Under federal law, a motorcycle that isn’t certified by the manufacturer for on-road use by meeting all of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) is considered an off-road vehicle”
        That means per you WSDOL that ALL Motorcycles in the United States of America prior to 1971 are Off-Road motorcycles?

        You may want to re-think what you (WSDOL) just stated.

        Because there was No REQUIREMENT prior to 1971 for FMVSS Identification.

        In fact there was no requirement for a motorcycle manufacturer to certify/declare the motorcycle’s FMVSS compliance before 1967.

        Because there was no FMVSS before 1967.

        Better get all those OFF-ROAD Harleys and Indians impounded per your other FALSE statement “If a motorcycle isn’t certified, and doesn’t have the required certification label, it can’t be licensed for on-road use.”

        ADDITIONALLY WASHINGTON STATE did not adopt The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as 49 CFR 571 until 10/17/2008.
        You can not adopt a Federal Law in 2008, and then OUTLAW the vehicles that met your Prior WA RULES/LAWS/POLICIES!

  8. Michael G says:

    I second John’s request. Your adherence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and dragging the manufacturers into this issue has no basis in Washington State law. If I am incorrect, please provide the citation.

    These are applicable:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.37.539

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.37.523

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.37.525

    Are there more?

    I’d be willing to bet many automobiles do not comply with the federal standards, but yet, you aren’t pulling their licenses.

    I wish I was a man of means or a lawyer. I’d have fun with this one.

    • DOL Blog says:

      State law (RCW 46.37.005) gives the Washington State Patrol the authority to:

      …adopt, apply, and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations (1) relating to proper types of vehicles or combinations thereof for hauling passengers, commodities, freight, and supplies, (2) relating to vehicle equipment, and (3) relating to the enforcement of the provisions of this title with regard to vehicle equipment, as may be deemed necessary for the public welfare and safety in addition to but not inconsistent with the provisions of this title.

      The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as 49 CFR 571, were adopted by the Washington State Patrol by reference in WAC 204-10-021. This spells out all of the requirements vehicles, including motorcycles, have to meet before they are eligible for street use.

      Under federal law, a motorcycle that isn’t certified by the manufacturer for on-road use by meeting all of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) is considered an off-road vehicle. An off-road motorcycle differs in fundamental ways from an on-road motorcycle; making it inappropriate and unsafe for street use. A motorcycle manufactured and certified for on-road use is required to have a label declaring the motorcycle’s FMVSS compliance permanently affixed by the manufacturer on the frame near the handlebars (CFR 49 part 567.4). If a motorcycle isn’t certified, and doesn’t have the required certification label, it can’t be licensed for on-road use.

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        DOL’s reply above: “If a motorcycle isn’t certified, and doesn’t have the required certication
        label, it can’t be licensd for on-road use.”

        DOL please respond with State law
        (RCW XX.XX.XXX) How old motorcycles
        built long before there was FMVSS requirements
        adresses grandfathering for licensing.

  9. Brad Redmond says:

    Do you think we will all sell our bikes, buy a Subaru wagon, and start hiking on trails now? Don’t think so WA DOL…leave us alone and find something to work on that matters.

  10. Mike Gorman says:

    This action by DOL is indicative of the bureaucracy that weighs down Washington State. It Causes expense to the tax payer with negligible if any return in public safety or order. When someone goes to the expenses of adding necessary hardware to a off road bike to make it safe and use compliant with the rules of the road, lights, horn, etc. they are the type of citizens that make our society livable. Along comes the self rightous law enforcement person that wants to re-shape the world and in their own small way manage to P— O– the large bunch of honest, off road users that who tried to conform. Congratulations, does the DOL and the LEO feel that Tim Eyman and his signers who want less government have a legitimate reason to cut taxes and lay off bureaucrats? Travel around and it isn’t hard to see why Boeing is leaving. DOL is only a symptom, the cancer is in the head of the beast, the legislature and Governors office. The next time you see a tractor, swamp buggy fertilizer spreader, county road grader, DOT front end loader with a license plate, get the number and call DOL and ask for an explanation. DOT even puts plates on their farm tractors that they mow road sides with. MANUFACTURE CERTIFIED FOR HIGHWAY USE? NO WAY. If DOL asks for comments, does that mean they will respond?

    • tdfox says:

      Yes isn’t interesting to see the Forest service
      “trail rangers” riding their Honda CRF250X with licence plates. Hmmmm I can’t get one of those how does our “law enforcment” get one?
      Did you say double standard? yeah that’s what I thought!

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        DOL Please respond if “tdfox” is correct.
        Does the trail rangers ride CRF250X
        motorcycles?
        If so, as a WA tax payer I do not
        want you to spend a dime pulling their
        plates. Just tell the truth and grandfather
        our motorcycles and save a lot of money!

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        I have talked verbally with Glenn Ball (DOL) Toni Wilson’s (DOL) boss. Glenn has promised to address this on the Blog ! Phoned on 10/25 and 10/26/2010

      • john schuller says:

        The forest ranger I stopped and spoke with last year at Table Mountain had a KTM 200 2stroke loaded in the back of the official forest service truck. Guess what we talked about…the plate it had on it!!!!

  11. Tim Marbl says:

    I ride, AND I vote! I wi;ll remeber this and my nova funds being stolen to support state parks!

    Good riddance “queen” and good bye to you legislators

  12. The Heretic says:

    WA state DOL needs to cite the relevant laws instead of just making assertions about the law without supporting citations.

    • tdfox says:

      yes exactly “DOL does not have the authority to grandfather” not true DOL does what it wants.

  13. trailmeisterjoe says:

    STOLEN nova money.
    OPT OUT of extra fees for parks on all registrations.
    STOLEN plates.
    STOLEN refunds for the registration money we spent on those plates.
    KEEP yer lousy orv tag….i already have an Oregon one good for two years. besides, the now useless plate will come in handy keeping mud off in winter riding. I also VOTE, but never for left wing greenie wacko’s like the majority in charge now.

  14. stephen says:

    leave it to wa state to turn normally law abiding, morally conscious individuals into criminals. they just made the decision for me, no stopping for the coppers, catch me if you can. not that they care anyway. i haven’t been checked for tabs or sparky since the nova funds were stolen. the powers that be that still exist don’t care anymore. good job wa. good job.

    • Jon says:

      It is happening everywhere…blocking access to logging roads with gates…backroom deals with logging companies that are sending logs to China as fast as they can strip the coast range, more and more regulations on every outdoor activity, more and more fees, stickers, licenses…freedom is evaporating like a mist.

  15. Trailrider says:

    I don’t buy thier story of LEOs seeing ORV only stamped on bike frames.I’ve owned countless dirt bikes, KTM Kawasaki< Suzuki, Honda's etc and NEVR EVER saw Off Road Use Only stamped on a frame.

    Are home meade choppers with 6 foot long forks "safe" compared to high tech $6,000 KTM's with turn signals, horn,brakelight, etc???

    This whole thing reeks of special interest groups buying thier wish of locking up all our public land (aka National Forest) and making it all hike in only.

    I have a bad knee, so I'm not allowed in YOUR National Forest anymore????

    6 million acres folks, share that less than 1% used by motocycles. The National Forest does not belong to hikers alone.

    • cayuse says:

      Good point. Gregore SUCKS and so do the SP

      I have a 2001 and have licensed it for 10 years. New tire 60/40, fix the week wire job.
      I am psssd

  16. tdfox says:

    What does “DOL does not have the authority” to grandfather these bike.
    Baloney! the DOL has shown time and time again “they” can write a policy (law) to fit the current admininstrations desires. It is up to the state to determine it’s laws.
    Just another lame excuse.
    Guess it’s time to go build a chopper and get a plate.

  17. john schuller says:

    Yep, a “chopper” with DOT tires, a WP suspension, a KTM engine and a “custom” frame made from a scrapped donor bike (new steering neck with locking devise of course), …just like the donor mustangs are used for the homemade AC cobra’s the state is issuing plates and titles to everyday. This shouldn’t take to long….
    Should have it ready for inspection by spring.
    Screw ‘em, there’s always a way around these bureaucrats and their BS. Until then they better put blue lights and sirens on the ranger vehicles, cause I ain’t stopping to say hi!

  18. corkster says:

    I paid good money for a plated bike, now washington owes me a refund, most of us use these bikes just to ride legally on forest service roads from trail to trail like good boys & girls, now im an outlaw, i will put tabs from one of my old trailers on this bike and i dont care, they are not taking my plate away, we should not have to buy 350 pound bikes that only ride off road, Im so ticked off lately at washinton state im thinking of moving my entire life the hell out of here.

  19. john schuller says:

    Affected KTM owners have ten days to appeal or its history boys.
    RCW 46.12.240
    Appeals to superior court from suspension, revocation, cancellation, or refusal of license or certificate.
    1) The suspension, revocation, cancellation, or refusal by the director of any license or certificate provided for in chapters 46.12 and 46.16 RCW is conclusive unless the person whose license or certificate is suspended, revoked, canceled, or refused appeals to the superior court of Thurston county, or at his or her option to the superior court of the county of his or her residence, for the purpose of having the suspension, revocation, cancellation, or refusal of the license or certificate set aside. Notice of appeal must be filed within ten days after receipt of the notice of suspension, revocation, cancellation, or refusal. Upon the filing of the notice of appeal the court shall issue an order to the director to show cause why the license should not be granted or reinstated, which order shall be returnable not less than ten days after the date of service thereof upon the director. Service shall be in the manner prescribed for service of summons and complaint in other civil actions. Upon the hearing on the order to show cause, the court shall hear evidence concerning matters with reference to the suspension, revocation, cancellation, or refusal of the license or certificate and shall enter judgment either affirming or setting aside the suspension, revocation, cancellation, or refusal.

    They made me a criminal again….darn. Don’t give a sh*t anymore

  20. mlyamkaw says:

    There is a lawsuit starting over this guys. That will be a great way for our dumb state to burn more taxpayer money, defending lawsuits because they wronged a group of people. So reduce revenue, piss off the people, and have to defend actions in a lawsuit. Great move DOL.

    • john schuller says:

      Lawsuit??? More info please.
      Only a few days to go before its not appeal-able per
      46.12.240

      • Michael W Edwards says:

        please let me know if i can help

  21. dbktm says:

    We all need to fight this! This is just another step for all of us to lose our freedom. Just bought a new KTM because I could put a plate on it to be legal on fire service roads. The state can now pay me for the bike since it is now useless to me! Power in numbers people! We all need to voice our comments. Maybe the state should pull all the plates from the half legal or not legal jeeps and 4×4’s the tear up the precious public lands that we are banned from. This state sucks sh*t!

  22. FamilyTrailRider says:

    Such policy direction represents the poor representation and even worse decision making on behalf of “We the People”. The impacted majority are most all off-road motorcyclist that have spend additional money and time to meet the requirements of law enforcement. In the very first statement of this news, reveals the error in judgement in decision making. If law enforcement stopped individuals on the streets with improperly equipped motorcycles, then those individuals should have received citations. However, this should not be the reason to drive a license policy change. Such regulatory knee-jerk policy reaction is pure lack of good judgement on what is right for the greater good. As a group, most are trail riding enthusiasts who never ride on the paved/city street and only worked to buy licensable bikes because the forest service regs required if for use of forest roads. Most I know would gladly pay for a license AND an ORV tab to provide added revenues and meet legal requirements – however this was never an option as DOL would only provide one or the other. So, instead of looking for a solution that would increase reveneus, better meet the requirements of the greater 98% of people impacted by this, our representatives and bureaucrats decided to change law that reduced revenue, impacted the ability to legally access the land, and overall serve the people less. Sure I’ll lobby, make statements to representatives, and waste more tax dollars getting this reversed or revised, but a little thought and common sense in the first place would have served us all better, created better policy, generated more revenue for this area of govermental regualtion, and been more “representative” of we the people that pay your salary.

  23. Michael W Edwards says:

    This is another example of a communist state stealing
    from its residents. The police(criminals with badges who are liars) using their guns and badges along with our govener stealing from the public. You see I just recently went through this with the DOL and I kept asking why they were giving me a plate when my bike states on the frame it is not street legal now they want to steal more from me because they gave me a plate.. They are theives and liars. They want respect but do not deserve it, its earned not given and not by lying.. get these idiots out of office and we will ride like we used to before they where hatched under what ever rock they crawled out of.

    • Michael W Edwards says:

      do not harrass them either because in wash state a cop can get away with killing anyone watch the news a knife warrents a gun a finger warrents a gun looking at them wrong warrents a gun talk to them as thought they were human it warrents a gun watch out people

  24. joesho says:

    Is it true? you don’t need to be a legal citizen to get a wa. drivers license???? is that why we have thousands of illegals who can’t speak english!!!!driving on our public highways, who can’t read english traffic signs!! IS THAT SAFE????? what about that stretched out custom harley or that 800hp street rod with no fenders cruising through rush hour traffic or down at Alki with all the pedestrians close by , how often do we see a KTM causing problems out on the public highways? But now I can get a ticket for riding my KTM down a forest service road in between trail heads!!!!! maybe we need to get out in the sun, get a tan, then head south of the border & swimm back across, then we can smuggle drugs, kill, rape, ride our KTMs where we want and then just act stupid like we don’t understand!!! don’t forget when you break your leg on your KTM, you can get free service at the E-room

  25. Mark Smith says:

    We need to get a money pool together, and get some good attornies. A campaigne needs to be started NOW. The NMA and AMA would be a good couple of organizations to pool the money in and do the hiring of legal representation.

    But, that means involvement in these organizations to direct them to the problem, and most of all, it means everybody and their brothers, sisters, cousins, parents, etc, needs to join these organizations once this gets organized. Lots of money will need to be raised. So be prepared to join up and pay up, with pride. There are too many people involved in the hiker community, so we need everybody to combat this loss of freedom so that we can use part of the U.S. for our enjoyment as well. And while we are at it, lets take back the land they stole from us recently, up by Mad Lake. All trails there were built with our ORV money, and now we can’t go there.

    Don’t be ingorant, stupid, or brain-washed by the media either! Just like every group, law enforcement, citizens, Boeing workers, Hispanics, African Americans, Whites, you can always find some bad apples in every group. And to then say that the entire group is bad, is just plain “ignant”. Bad law enforcement is turning against 2-wheeled vehicles, and not really understanding why you are doing it, or how it will help the country. It is not bad law enforcement when somebody is coming at you with a knife. Hell, I would shoot if somebody who came at me with a knife!

    Brain-washed law enforcement does exist. Just look at the Fish and Game officers. They would cite their own mothers for making a minor mistake during fishing season!

    So, bottom line, it is money, money, money. Oh, and voting, voting, voting. Elections are close. Get rid of the lefties now. People keep voting for them, thinking they will get something for nothing. Wake up, people. Nothing is for free, and you won’t qualify for any government hand-outs. So quit voting for them. All they do is fertilize kids having kids, and we end up with more criminals! Real ones, that is, not motorcyclists trying to enjoy the State of Washington.

  26. john schuller says:

    Well, DOL responded in an email today that they had made a mistake with the licensing of these bikes, and were now trying to correct it. They cited WAC204-10-021 as authority for this action. Note this WAC was enacted in 10/17/08. Now they want to apply it retroactively…two years later. I intend to ask for compensation for loss of use and diminished value, as a result of their actions.

    Lawyer up time guys.

    • DOL Blog says:

      By law, DOL is not liable for inappropriately registering a vehicle (RCW 46.16.012). We have taken steps to ensure that in the future KTM will provide the department with the correct documents to determine the roadworthiness of a vehicle.

      • john schuller says:

        Now ain’t that special, your agency screws up (admitted in email to me)and then reference a RCW saying you aren’t responcible for your screw up. Wonder how that got put on the books?

        Outrageous!!!

      • john schuller says:

        Since you aren’t responcible for your inappropriate action…I won’t need to be either.

        I’m going to scrap this bike and build my own using many of the parts I happen to have collected over the years. Should be ready for “inspection” by spring. This ain’t a spaceship.

        And yes, I pissed as hell with this bureaucratic crap, can you tell?

        No wonder folks in this state want to de-fund anything to do with state government.

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        Please respond with how well “We have taken steps to ENSURE that in the future KTM will provide the department with the correct documents to determine the roadworthiness of a vehicle.” worked in my 07-23-2010 case.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Attention Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office.
      If the Washington state patrol adopts by reference Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and any amendments thereto for vehicle equipment standards unless otherwise prescribed under state law on 10/17/2010. Does that not mean anything considered street legal prior to 10/17/2010 would have to be grandfathered to the RULE/LAW/POLICY in effect prior to 10/17/2010? Please respond.

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        Sorry all the dates 10/17/2010 above should have been 10/17/2008. [Statutory Authority: RCW 46.37.005 and 46.37.320. 08-19-079, § 204-10-021, filed 9/16/08, effective 10/17/08.]
        Sure would be nice if the Blog allowed you to edit your mistakes!

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        Thinking out loud here:
        If the Washingon Rule/Law/Policy did not EXIST or WAS NOT ENFORCED prior to 10/17/2008 ((adopting by reference Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS))… Heck it was not ENFORCED until 10/01/2010… How could any motorcycle with street legal plates suddenly be revoked? Seems a LEAST the motorcycles prior to 10/17/2008 would have to be grandfathered to be a legal.

  27. robdogg says:

    The other related question in all this is, why does the state consider some rarely traveled forest road, halfway up some mountain, deep in a National Forest part of the highway system anyway?

  28. john schuller says:

    Relevant quote copied from another website discussing this issue. Will our bureaucrats in Olympia be as wise?

    “When CA, a leader in motor vehicle regulatory code, found a similar problem in 2006 (all makes), they realized that at best the regulatory landscape had been rough and had the wisdom to grandfather 04 and earlier. And they have CARB!”

    Show me the RCW/WAC that prevents Grandfathering, when the mistakes are clearly the states. Show me the “safety” issues when you can build a bike in your garage and license.

    • john schuller says:

      Still waiting for a reply from DOL to my inquiries made a couple of weeks ago.

      Tony Smith from DOL(who was kind enough to reply) recommended this: “If you have questions, please contact Pam Breuer, Vehicle Licensing Manager, at 360-902-3998 or by email at pbreuer@dol.wa.gov.”

      DOL appears to be another VERY unresponsive agency, so typical of Olympia. 6 figure salaries and no accountability is what I see. Communication with State reps going better.

      • john schuller says:

        Still waiting for these arrogant bureaucrats to respond….

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        Thanks for your post! I contacted Pam and
        she has be very nice…
        When I contacted the Attorney General’s
        office a rude women told me to call
        Liz Luce Director of DOL.
        I then got a call from Toni Wilson (DOL)
        Read my post on 10-21-2010 for Toni’s
        Comment/Help

  29. Jeff says:

    As an employee at another public agency, I’m amazed by the way DOL has handled this. In my agency, I do everything possible to make my actions transparent and un-bureaucratic as possible. I know that the general public dislikes most government agencies, so I do everything I can to make decisions that I’m willing to stand behind in full public view. DOL seems to have taken the exact opposite approach; this has been a classic bureaucratic decision that DOL is eagerly trying to blame on anyone else they can find.

    Not only has the state managed to take money out of my pocket by decreasing the value of my bike by %30, but they have put the clamps on my spending. There are several other bikes out there that would fit my needs (lightweight and can have a street plate), but I have no idea when or where DOL will make their next arbitrary decision. I’m not going to dare spend a dime on another trail bike. DOL has proven that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and I have absolutely no way of knowing what is safe and legal.

    Yet another agency who has forgotten that they are here to serve the citizens of Washington State, not the other way around.

    Like most of the people who have been affected by revoked KTM plates, I have no interest in riding my bike on a State highway. Unfortunately, we are required to be street legal to ride on USFS logging roads that connect our trails. What options are there for a light, trail-worthy bike that can be legally ridden on short stretches of logging road to connect trails? Of the few bikes that fit that bill, how do I know that DOL won’t pull their plates next time?

    To claim that this action was taken for public safetly is laughable. This decision is punishing people who are trying to do the right thing by staying street-legal on USFS logging roads.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Just in-case the DOL employees feel pressure from upper management to follow foolish adgendas… (As an employee at another public agency) Do you have any thoughts to help the DOL employees read their ethics handbooks and come forth to the media with inside info of DOL tax dollar waste in the name of motorcycle safety? With the scandal recently on the DOL employees selling Fake WA Driver’s License, you would think ethics would be a hot topic right now in that organization.

  30. Disgruntled taxpayer says:

    Maybe it’s time to come up with an “off pavement” plate for vehicles that are equipped with proper equipment, but were not manufactured for street use. Would allow riding on forest service roads between trails, but not on the “street”??

  31. john schuller says:

    Just to give you an idea of how STUPID this issue is in WA state…relate it to what they license for REAL street use in California of all places! Safety my ass. http://www.coolthings.com/tom-wrights-street-legal-bumper-cars/

  32. Mark Bezinque says:

    I bought a 2000 KTM EXC in late June 2010. The original owner converted it to street legal, and it was inspected by WA state in 2000 per the 1998 to 2000 WA Rule/Law/Policy. The KTM has been street legal plated in WA for 10 years with an “ORV use” on the title. I got my approved street legal title back from WA and was riding without issue. ONE WEEK later I get a DOL letter saying it was one of the 800 KTMs not SAFE for street use. This bike is SAFER then my street legal drum brake 1983 Honda XL. I have been politely going to anyone in the DOL that will listen to me. Seems I found the near top official this week. Toni Wilson (DOL) verbally said they will not grandfather in my KTM and does not care what the 1998-2000 Rule/Law/Policy was. I have sent my entire string of e-mails requesting help to all of the WA House and Senate. Also in that note I asked Toni to reply if I have misunderstood her verbal statement. I feel the DOL was negligent when they took my money in June for street legal plates and 6 weeks later took the plates back. Being 51 years old, I know my rights and will fight to have my Inspected KTM grandfathered. This is not about Safety… and I have asked the WA House and Senate on 10-20-2010 to ask the DOL what the real agenda is. I suggest each of you be polite and write all of the WA House and Senate. DO NOT RANT… we can win this being cool and calm.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Correction on post Oct.21st,2010 @ 8:01 AM. I was doing a time-line of events this weekend, and noted my purchase date in the post above is in error. Purchase date of “late June” should have been JULY 23,2010. Also “6-weeks later” should have been 35 days later. Washington State (WA) Department Of License (DOL) sold me a street legal motorcycle license plate on 07/23/2010 (the same day I bought a 2000 KTM motorcycle that has been street legal since 04/15/2000 / 10 + years), then sent me (Mark Bezinque) a letter dated 08/27/2010 (35 days after selling me the street legal license plate) saying the DOL was taking/revoking my street legal license plate and only replacing it with an “ORV only” sticker.

  33. WA House and Senate E-mail says:

    TRY to be polite when you write YOUR government.
    This is YOUR WA House and Senate.
    anderson.glenn@leg.wa.gov; angel.jan@leg.wa.gov; appleton.sherry@leg.wa.gov; armstrong.mike@leg.wa.gov; bailey.barbara@leg.wa.gov blake.brian@leg.wa.gov campbell.tom@leg.wa.gov carlyle.reuven@leg.wa.gov chandler.bruce@leg.wa.gov chase.maralyn@leg.wa.gov chopp.frank@leg.wa.gov clibborn.judy@leg.wa.gov cody.eileen@leg.wa.gov condotta.cary@leg.wa.gov conway.steve@leg.wa.gov crouse.larry@leg.wa.gov dammeier.bruce@leg.wa.gov darneille.j@leg.wa.gov debolt.richard@leg.wa.gov dickerson.marylou@leg.wa.gov driscoll.john@leg.wa.gov dunshee.hans@leg.wa.gov eddy.deborah@leg.wa.gov ericks.mark@leg.wa.gov ericksen.doug@leg.wa.gov fagan.susan@leg.wa.gov finn.fred@leg.wa.gov flannigan.dennis@leg.wa.gov goodman.roger@leg.wa.gov green.tami@leg.wa.gov haigh.kathy@leg.wa.gov haler.larry@leg.wa.gov hasegawa.bob@leg.wa.gov herrera.jaime@leg.wa.gov hinkle.bill@leg.wa.gov hope.mike@leg.wa.gov hunt.sam@leg.wa.gov hunter.ross@leg.wa.gov hurst.christopher@leg.wa.gov jacks.jim@leg.wa.gov johnson.norm@leg.wa.gov kagi.ruth@leg.wa.gov kelley.troy@leg.wa.gov kenney.phyllis@leg.wa.gov kessler.lynn@leg.wa.gov kirby.steve@leg.wa.gov klippert.brad@leg.wa.gov kretz.joel@leg.wa.gov kristiansen.dan@leg.wa.gov liias.marko@leg.wa.gov linville.kelli@leg.wa.gov maxwell.marcie@leg.wa.gov mccoy.john@leg.wa.gov mccune.jim@leg.wa.gov miloscia.mark@leg.wa.gov moeller.jim@leg.wa.gov morrell.dawn@leg.wa.gov morris.jeff@leg.wa.gov nealey.terry@leg.wa.gov nelson.sharon@leg.wa.gov obrien.al@leg.wa.gov orcutt.ed@leg.wa.gov ormsby.timm@leg.wa.gov orwall.tina@leg.wa.gov parker.kevin@leg.wa.gov pearson.kirk@leg.wa.gov pedersen.jamie@leg.wa.gov pettigrew.eric@leg.wa.gov priest.skip@leg.wa.gov probst.tim@leg.wa.gov quall.dave@leg.wa.gov roach.dan@leg.wa.gov roberts.maryhelen@leg.wa.gov rodne.jay@leg.wa.gov rolfes.christine@leg.wa.gov ross.charles@leg.wa.gov santos.sharontomiko@leg.wa.gov schmick.joe@leg.wa.gov seaquist.larry@leg.wa.gov sells.mike@leg.wa.gov shea.matt@leg.wa.gov short.shelly@leg.wa.gov simpson.geoff@leg.wa.gov smith.norma@leg.wa.gov springer.larry@leg.wa.gov sullivan.pat@leg.wa.gov takko.dean@leg.wa.gov taylor.david@leg.wa.gov upthegrove.dave@leg.wa.gov vandewege.kevin@leg.wa.gov wallace.deb@leg.wa.gov walsh.maureen@leg.wa.gov warnick.judy@leg.wa.gov white.scott@leg.wa.gov williams.brendan@leg.wa.gov wood.alex@leg.wa.gov becker.randi@leg.wa.gov; benton.don@leg.wa.gov; berkey.jean@leg.wa.gov; brandland.dale@leg.wa.gov; brown.lisa@leg.wa.gov; carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov; delvin.jerome@leg.wa.gov; eide.tracey@leg.wa.gov; fairley.darlene@leg.wa.gov; franklin.rosa@leg.wa.gov; fraser.karen@leg.wa.gov; gordon.randy@leg.wa.gov; hargrove.jim@leg.wa.gov; hatfield.brian@leg.wa.gov; haugen.marymargaret@leg.wa.gov; hewitt.mike@leg.wa.gov; hobbs.steve@leg.wa.gov; holmquist.janea@leg.wa.gov; honeyford.jim@leg.wa.gov; jacobsen.ken@leg.wa.gov; kastama.jim@leg.wa.gov; kauffman.claudia@leg.wa.gov; keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov; kilmer.derek@leg.wa.gov; king.curtis@leg.wa.gov; kline.adam@leg.wa.gov; kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov; marr.chris@leg.wa.gov; mcauliffe.rosemary@leg.wa.gov; mccaslin.bob@leg.wa.gov; mcdermott.joe@leg.wa.gov; morton.bob@leg.wa.gov; murray.edward@leg.wa.gov; oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov; parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov; pflug.cheryl@leg.wa.gov; prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov; pridemore.craig@leg.wa.gov; ranker.kevin@leg.wa.gov; regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov; roach.pam@leg.wa.gov; rockefeller.phil@leg.wa.gov; schoesler.mark@leg.wa.gov; sheldon.timothy@leg.wa.gov; shin.paull@leg.wa.gov; stevens.val@leg.wa.gov; swecker.dan@leg.wa.gov; tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov; zarelli.joseph@leg.wa.gov

  34. Mark Bezinque says:

    DOL Moderator:
    Why was my post of the WA House and Senate email addresses not passed thru moderation ???
    It is a Washington Residents right to contact their government.

    • DOL Blog says:

      We’re sorry, Mr. Bezinque, your post with all of the email addresses in it was flagged by the automatic spam filter. An attempt to approve it for posting now appears successful. A complete list of state legislative email address is available here: https://dlr.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/Default.aspx

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        Thank You for your reply and allowing the post.

  35. tjschul says:

    In the latest pdf. they supplied my 26th district rep, and he forwarded to me, they are (now) also making emissions an issue.

    I’m 60 years old and have really had a snoot full over the years! My focus these days is to defund these clowns every chance I get. Avoid sales tax, avoid tolls, avoid putting tabs on vehicles unless absolutely necessary, refuse to vote for anything that sends money their way. Actually, this year I’ve noticed a significant decrease in “supervision” in the woods…a very good sign that a bankrupt Olympia is working in the direction I would like.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      I think my 2000 4-stroke KTM 520 EXC could pass an
      E-test with the same levels as a 2009 4-stroke
      KTM 530 EXC… I stated that also in my e-mails to
      the WA House and Senate. Hope they read it!

  36. Mark Bezinque says:

    “Off-Road Motorcycle Q&A” above: Is this action the result of a change in the law?
    DOL Response: No, DOL has not changed any laws, rules or policies related to the registration of off-road motorcycles. The agency is taking steps to better ensure compliance with existing laws.
    My response: This is not a true DOL statement !
    The DOL intends to ATTEMPT to take the street legal plates away from all WA Off-Road motorcycles in the future per your 08/27/2010 letter to KTM owners.
    There are off-road motorcycles that were inspected by WA State and SOLD street legal plates from 1998-2000 per a conversion policy.
    Appears to me that is an attempt to change: “laws, rules or policies related to the registration of off-road motorcycles.” or just ignore a past Law/Policy.
    DOL please respond.

    • tjschul says:

      Wait a minute…you think these bureaucrats answer to you, a common citizen? They are doing this for your “safety” and the “enviroment”, you should already know and respect that, and give them a break already.

      Yeah right…That’s why homemade bikes with beer kegs for fuel tanks are inspected by the WSP and licenced for road use by this agency.

      I’m going the path of outlaw, much easier…screw ‘em.

      For perspective:

      http://www.coolthings.com/tom-wrights-street-legal-bumper-cars/

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        I am hoping to find an honest WA State employee at some point :)

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        The Tom Wright Bumper cars are awesome. My wife may lose her quad as a donor for one of those. Oh wait WA would let me buy plates for 1 month then take them away :(

  37. Mark Bezinque says:

    “Off road motorcycle Q&A from DOL BLOG”
    Question: What are you doing to correct this issue with reading MSOs and MCOs?
    DOL Answer: Now that we are aware of these discrepancies in the messages printed on MSOs and MCOs, vehicle licensing office employees will be looking for both off-road related messages and the appropriate manufacturer certification for highway use before a motorcycle will be registered for street use. We also are working with manufacturers who don’t currently add an “off-road use only” message to MSOs to add it when appropriate so that they are compliant with Washington Administrative Code.

    My view and comment: This DOL answer is a documented FALSE statement (“Now we are aware of these discrepancies”) 07/23/2010 the WA DOL sold me a street legal plate. Then the DOL processed the last owner’s title that stated a “Use Class” ORV. The DOL then transferred a new title to my name. The new title now states a “Use Class” CYC. This happened in Mid August 2010. This was ONE WEEK before the DOL sent, ”The letter to 800 KTM owners dated August 27th 2010”. DOL please respond to the blog on how well your new improved process worked in my 07/23/2010 case.

    Additional INFO: On 04/15/2000 (10-years ago) the WA DOL processed my KTM with a “Use Class” ORV on the title. There were no “discrepancies in the messages printed on the original MSOs and MCOs to trick the DOL”, because you (DOL) seen it was an ORV, and had ORV in the “Use Class” on that title. When my KTM’s original street legal license plate expired on 04/2006, you (DOL) issued a 2nd street legal plate for my KTM still having a “Use Class” ORV on a replacement title (1st title was lost). That 2nd street legal plate was on the KTM when I bought it on 07/23/2010. When I bought the KTM the last owner’s title stated “Use Class” ORV. DOL please respond again about “how you (DOL) were tricked by KTM and the MSO / MCO. You (DOL) knew my KTM was an off-road motorcycle on the original title when you had a “Use Class” ORV. All of my KTM titles since new on 04/15/2000 have had “Use Class” ORV… that is until when the DOL changed it to “Use Class” CYC on 07/23/2010. It is obvious my KTM was re-classified from an Off-Road motorcycle to Dual-Sport Street Legal Status, and WA State Equipment Inspected my KTM for Safety per the 1998-2000 Washington State Rule/Law/Policy and you (DOL) issued my KTM (2) street legal license plates. I insist you (DOL) grandfather in my 2000 KTM and return my street legal license plate. My request to all of the DOL employees… Please review your Ethics training/handbook. Be honest government employees, save WA tax-dollars… and please contact Attorney General Rob McKenna. Mr. McKenna does not seem to have time to discuss this with me, but may listen to a DOL employee. http://www.atg.wa.gov/

  38. Frank Lyall says:

    This is example A1a of a state government and bureaucracy, that can’t, don’t and won’t do anything right. The only recourse a citizen has, is to starve this overweening and over staffed entity of any and all tax money. Of course the said bureaucracy will then bitterly complain of “draconian cuts” and blame every one but themselves. This whole issue is one of Orwellian disassociation from the people they “serve”. The fact that motorcycles that the DOL street licensed for often 10 years or more have been singled out, gives lie to every justification the DOL provides. This is not about safety or emissions, but of bureaucratic overreach.

  39. Mark Bezinque says:

    “Off road motorcycle Q&A from DOL BLOG”
    Question: Why do other states allow off road cycles to be converted to street cycles by adding kits to them?
    DOL Answer: Laws and rules can vary from state to state. Some states do allow the conversion of an off-road cycle for street use, but many others do not. Washington is among the states that do not permit the conversion of off-road vehicles for street use. In our state, a manufacturer must certify on the MSO that a motorcycle was not designed and manufactured for street use.
    My view and comment: DOL answer is a documented false statement (“Washington is among the states that do not permit the conversion of off-road vehicles for street use“) Washington State DID allow the conversion of an off-road cycle for street use from 1998-2000, and NOW the DOL refuses to grandfather in these motorcycles that were compliant to WA State Rule/Law/Policy.
    Additional False DOL statement, (“a manufacturer MUST certify on the MSO that a motorcycle was not designed and manufactured for street use”) TODAY WA motorcycle dealers continue to sell European motorcycles in Washington State without a manufacturer certifying on the MSO that a motorcycle was not designed and manufactured for street use. You (DOL) confirm this on the “Off road motorcycle Q&A on DOL Letter to 800 KTM owners dated August 27th 2010“. (“However, we (DOL) have been working with KTM for some time to get the proper notation on the MSO’s”).

    Just an FYI before my question below: The motorcycles in question were safe for street use in WA from 1998-2000. The motorcycles in question are safe for the Federal Rangers in WA State to use on WA roads today. The motorcycles in question are safe to use in other states today.
    My Question: So why is only “the WA resident” NOW not safe with this motorcycle?
    DOL Please do not use the “not safe story”, until you (DOL) can respond with Safety Facts and Data. Prove how dangerous these motorcycles are compared to home-made choppers/rat bikes/mopeds, also old Harleys/Indians/etc. motorcycles (some with no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and federal emission standards) traveling legally on WA roads today. Until you (DOL) use facts and data… your words about these motorcycles suddenly not being safe for WA roads… are just pointless.

  40. Mark Bezinque says:

    “Off road motorcycle Q&A on DOL Letter to 800 KTM owners dated August 27th 2010” (not on blog Q&A???)
    Question: Why does it state that the motorcycle isn’t street-legal on KTM’s Manufacturer Statement of Origin (MSO’s)?
    DOL Answer: Federal law does not regulate off-road vehicles, therefore there is no requirement for the manufacturer to indicate off-road only on the MSO. However, we have been working with KTM for some time to get the proper notation on the MSO’s.
    My response: DOL since you “have been working with KTM for SOME TIME to get the proper notation on the MSO’s”, please provide/document the time-line/date of when you (DOL) first contacted KTM about indicating off-road only on their(KTM)MSO(s).

  41. Mark Bezinque says:

    Question: Why was I not told it wasn’t street legal when I did the transfer?
    DOL Answer: The Department of Licensing had no way to distinguish between off road and street legal KTM motorcycles based on the MSO’s, and your cycle was registered prior to DOL becoming aware of the issue with these MSO’s.
    My view and comment: DOL answer is a documented false statement. (“The Department of Licensing had NO WAY to distinguish between off road and street legal KTM motorcycles based on the MSO’s”) DOL please respond with how you NOW distinguish between off road and street legal KTM motorcycles based on the MSO’s… when you had “NO WAY” before and the MSOs have not changed yet.
    An additional DOL false statement. (… “Your cycle was registered prior to DOL becoming aware of the issue with these MSO’s). My KTM was registered on 07-23-2010. I challenge you (DOL) to reply that my cycle was registered/transferred prior to DOL becoming aware of the issue with these MSO’s. Also there MAY have been other motorcycles registered AFTER you (DOL) “became aware of the issue with these MSO’s”. DOL please provide the WA citizens you serve the DATE you (DOL) “became aware of the issue with these MSO’s”.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Whoops forgot to state/add where I got DOL statement above: Off road motorcycle Q&A on DOL Letter to 800 KTM owners dated August 27th 2010” (not on blog Q&A???)

  42. Mark Bezinque says:

    “Off road motorcycle Q&A on DOL Letter to 800 KTM owners dated August 27th 2010” (not on blog Q&A???)
    Question: Can I add equipment or a kit to my KTM motorcycle to make it street legal?
    DOL Answer: No. Washington law requires licensing the vehicle based on how the vehicle was originally manufactured.
    My response: I challenge this to be a true DOL statement. Please respond with the “Washington LAW” you (DOL) state here. I would like to read this “LAW” and what it states about classic, antique and restored vehicles must be in ORIGINAL Manufactured condition “Washington LAW requires licensing the vehicle based on how the vehicle was originally manufactured “ to receive a street legal plate. If this Washington Law is true/exists… how does the Washington State DOL explain street legal plates on Model-A Fords and Jeeps with Chevy engines, after-market suspensions, Choppers, etc? I have installed disc brakes, and rear seat belts on my old Chevelle to make it safer… will I have to put the UN-SAFE Factory Drum Brakes back on, and remove the rear seat belts to meet this LAW?

    “Off road motorcycle Q&A on DOL Letter to 800 KTM owners dated August 27th 2010” (not on blog Q&A???)
    Question: Why are you doing this now?
    DOL Answer: It was brought to our attention by law enforcement when officers stopped motorcycles operating on public roadway without required equipment and off-road only stamped on the frame, and questioned why these motorcycles had been licensed incorrectly.
    My response: DOL please provide the document and the time-line/date of when the first “issue was brought to your (DOL) attention by law enforcement officers”.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Whoops bad cut and paste… Please respond to 2nd question below @10:46 AM. It should not have been included with the request for response on “the WA LAW not allowing plates on non-original vehicles”.

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        DOL this is an easy question. Let me read State law(RCW XX.XX.XXX) “Washington LAW REQUIRES licensing the vehicle based on how the vehicle was originally manufactured.” Please respond.

  43. Mark Bezinque says:

    “Off road motorcycle Q&A on DOL Letter to 800 KTM owners dated August 27th 2010” (now not on blog Q&A???)
    Question: Can these be grandfathered in?
    DOL Answer: No Washington State does not have the authority under law to grandfather them in as street-legal cycles.
    My view and comment: DOL answer is a documented false statement. WA State has in fact shown the AUTHORITY under law to grandfather in old motorcycles that did not have Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and federal emission standards. DOL please respond on how all the old Harley, Triumph, Indian, etc. motorcycles ride legally on WA streets everyday with no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and federal emission standards. FYI Note: These old motorcycles were grandfathered in… to the PAST Federal and State Rules/Laws/Policies.

  44. Mark Bezinque says:

    “Off road motorcycle Q&A on DOL Letter to 800 KTM owners dated August 27th 2010” (now not on blog Q&A???)
    Question: I feel it does meet the safety standards; can I have it inspected?
    DOL Answer: No, Washington State does not perform safety inspections for vehicles, and will not re-classify an off-road vehicle for street use. The manufacturer must provide certification that the motorcycle meets federal safety standards before it can be licensed.
    My view and comment: DOL answer is a documented false statement. Washington State has performed safety inspections on off road motorcycles from 1998 thru 2000. Washington State has re-classified off-road vehicles for street use from 1998 thru 2000. The manufacturers of old motorcycles did not provide certification that the motorcycle meets federal safety standards before they were licensed in WA State, but they have been licensed under a grandfather clause.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Additional info I found this evening:
      The best I can tell the FMVSS did not exist until 1967. Also prior to 1971… the FMVSS did not require ID information. DOL please advise if I am in error.
      Also respond on how Motorcycles in Washington State BUILT PRIOR TO THESE DATES are granted street legal plates… If in Washington State, “The manufacturer of a motorcycle MUST certify that it meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and federal emission standards” and Washington State “does not have the authority under law to grandfather them in as street-legal cycles.”
      The DOL statements on the Blog and on the Letter to 800 KTM owners are FALSE.
      Also, I challenge you (DOL) to prove a 2000 KTM is LESS SAFE than a motorcycle with drum brakes that was engineered and manufactured prior to 1970.

      Ref info below:
      The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a legislative mandate
      under Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, to
      issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and Regulations to which
      manufacturers of motor vehicle and equipment items must conform and certify
      compliance. FMVSS 209 was the first standard to become effective on March 1,
      1967. A number of FMVSS became effective for vehicles manufactured on and
      after January 1, 1968. Subsequently, other FMVSS have been issued. New
      standards and amendments to existing standards are published in the Federal
      Register.
      566.1 Scope.
      This part requires manufacturers of motor vehicles, and of motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies, to submit identifying information and a description of the items they produce.
      [36 FR 20978, Nov. 2, 1971]
      566.2 Purpose.
      The purpose of this part is to facilitate the regulation of manufacturers under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and to aid in establishing a code numbering system for all regulated manufacturers.
      [36 FR 20978, Nov. 2, 1971]

  45. Mark Bezinque says:

    I meant for this question to stand on its own (not included with the 10:07 AM post)
    “Off road motorcycle Q&A on DOL Letter to 800 KTM owners dated August 27th 2010” (not on blog Q&A???)
    Question: Why are you doing this now?
    DOL Answer: It was brought to our attention by law enforcement when officers stopped motorcycles operating on public roadway without required equipment and off-road only stamped on the frame, and questioned why these motorcycles had been licensed incorrectly.
    My response: DOL please provide the document and the time-line/date of when the first “issue was brought to your (DOL) attention by law enforcement officers”.
    Please review WA Attorney General’s request to government: …There’s a common sense and more cost-effective way to resolve disputes between those seeking public records or open meetings and the government that is trying to comply: An administrative board to rule on alleged violations of sunshine laws. Also: This week, March 15-19, is National Sunshine Week. It’s a time to encourage conversations about open government. I hope that cities and counties, both small and large, will take the opportunity to renew their commitment to transparency and save taxpayers’ money at the same time.
    Link… http://www.atg.wa.gov/InGeneralPost.aspx?id=25352

  46. corkster says:

    I recently bought an xr 250 for my son which was inspected by the state patrol in 2000 and plated, went down to get tabs, now not legal for road? I have an xr 400 which falls under this same catagory, I only bought these bikes for more than they were worth because of the license plates, I will not be bullied by the government, they want your plates before they give you new off road tabs, so just tell them you thru it away and put the new tab year on your plate and still have the orv stickers? give me a ticket whatever! take me to court for your communistic ways.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Corkster, I thought about that when I did not have to sign for a registered letter/mail. But I want to stop this organization’s waste of WA tax dollars via Attorney General Rob McKenna. It appears Rob McKenna is working to stop government lawsuits that cost all the Washington Residents. I just want my street legal plate and title back (legally… because I do have the plate physically) and then I will go away! I have submitted a complaint to the Office of the Attorney General on 11/13/2010. It appears it may take 4-weeks, (“Your complaint is very important to us and we have assigned it to a consumer resource center specialist. Due to the volume and complexity of complaints made to our office, normal complaint processing time is approximately 4 weeks.”) I do not want to cost the WA tax payers, but will file a lawsuit if necessary. Ref the link 11-14-2010@10:46 AM above for Rob McKenna’s article. If your bikes have been inspected and converted… I suggest you also file a complaint with the Attorney General.

  47. Mark Bezinque says:

    Found at this link: www_.dol_.wa/about/whatisrule_.html The blog does not like links so, please remove the spaces/underscores to view.
    Liz Luce and Glenn Ball,
    Is your WSDOL organization serious when you post your statements?
    Below “The rule making process is designed to:”
    I would like your comment to the WA residents you serve on bullet # 3, #4, #5 and #6 in regards to the Off-Road motorcycles inspected by WSP equipment and legally converted to street legal use . Please give us your response on #6 with Washington State safety facts and data. (safe from 1998-2010, taking tax dollars until mid 2010, then unnecessarily revoking and wasting of WA tax dollars doing it.)
    What are the goals of rule making?
    The rule making process is designed to:
    • state our interpretation of the law.
    • write understandable rules.
    • ensure that the public is notified of our intent to propose rules on a subject.
    • encourage public participation in the rule-making process.
    • adopt rules that are technically accurate.
    • adopt rules that are not excessive, unreasonable, or unnecessary.

    Please read your ethics handbook, you are being dis-honest to the Washington State residents you are suppose to serve.

    • DOL Blog says:

      Mr. Bezinque,
      We always do our best meet our stated goals for making new administrative rules to guide our operations. The actions DOL is taking to correctly classify off-road motorcyles is not based on changes made through DOL’s rule making processes. These actions are based on existing state and federal rules and laws, as noted above.

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        DOL, Thank you for responding to this post.
        Please help me understand how this: “is not based on changes made through DOL’s rule making processes”?

        Please explain how the WSDOL and /or the WSP equipment could find/recognized there was a difference between say my 2000 KTM off-road motorcycle equipped with Mirrors, Horn, Headlight/Tail-light/Brake-light, and Muffler with no FMVSS ID… from say a Street Legal 1969 Suzuki TS-250 Savage dual-sport enduro with factory knobby tires and Moto-cross type exhaust equipped with Mirrors, Horn, Headlight/Tail-light/Brake-light, and Muffler with no FMVSS ID for street legal status per WA RULE/LAW/POLICY and PRIOR TO 10/17/2008???

        Note the 1969 Suzuki did have optional blinkers, but prior to 10/17/2008 both motorcycles met WA RULES/LAWS/POLICYS without blinkers.
        To clarify… any motorcycle (off-road or not) with Mirrors, Horn, Headlight/Tail-light/Brake-light, and Muffler with NO FMVSS was legal to street legal plate in WA.
        Ref. Chapter 46.36.010 RCW Dispositions [1943 c 133 § 1; 1937 c 189 § 6; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6360-6; 1927 c 309 § 14, part; RRS § 6362-14, part.] Now codified as RCW 46.37.005.

        On 10/17/2008… WA drives a stake in the ground, and I assume it was the WSDOL that “made changes in the DOL’s rule making Process” on 10/17/2008 when WSDOL or some RULE/LAW/POLICY changing organization in the WA government decided to write/put on the Books… WAC 204-10-021 (Adoption of federal standards)… filed 9/16/08, effective 10/17/08.

        If I am not correct so far…please supply me the WA RULE/LAW/POLICY that says I am in error.
        NOTE: WAC 204-10-021 (Adoption of federal standards) The Washington state patrol adopts by reference Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and any amendments thereto for vehicle equipment standards unless otherwise prescribed under state law. The FMVSS as outlined in Title 49 CFR 571 are as follows:
        [Statutory Authority: RCW 46.37.005 and 46.37.320. 08-19-079, § 204-10-021, filed 9/16/08, effective 10/17/08.]
        Again the Effective DATE 10/17/08.

        Now as of 10/17/2008, WSDOL can say: Any vehicles manufactured in a model year following the adoption of such standards. (that would be 2009 models) must meet:
        WAC 204-10-021 (Adoption of federal standards) The Washington state patrol adopts by reference Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

        My Comment/View: Any vehicle prior to 2009 would have to be grandfathered to the WA RULE/LAW/POLICY prior to 10/17/2008… Or you/WSDOL/Washington State are breaking the law.

        Ref. John Schuller’s post on “Nov.17th @ 6:33 PM.
        “Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution:
        “no state shall pass any “ex post facto law.”
        In short…”when the offending act was performed, it was not prohibited.” In this instance the DOL action certainly has retroactive effects on both the use of my property and its value.
        If the Washington Rule/Law/Policy did not adopt Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 until 10/17/2008 how is this not retroactive law.
        (This also applies to civil law (Calder v. Bull))”

        Again DOL please help me understand how this: (Your WSDOL Statement) “…is not based on changes made through DOL’s rule making processes”. Please respond.

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        Just an FYI for my post/reply Nov.18th @ 9:20 PM.

        I had to use the 1969 Suzuki TS-250 Salvage because the Sales Ad used the term Moto-Cross type Exhaust and Knobby Tires. LOL

        The TS stands for Trail Street in Suzuki’s old school line up of Enduros. (Enduro is an old school term for OFF-ROAD)

        And the Suzuki SAVAGE motorcycle is Street Legal in all 50-States. (then and now)

        PS This includes California because of grandfathering!

      • Jeremiah Fultz says:

        Federal law does not regulate off-road vehicles, therefore there is no requirement for the manufacturer to indicate off-road only on the MSO. However, we have been working with KTM for some time to get the proper notation on the MSO’s.

        How can this be based on “Federal Law” when your replay to Mr. Bezinque clearly states that “Federal Law does not regulate off-road vehicles”, then what gives you the right to.
        I am not only an off-road motorcycle rider but classic car restorer, collector, and enthusiast. I believe that the rules that apply to classic cars, motorcycles, kit cars, and home built vehicles should apply to these “off-road” bikes. These are limited use vehicles that rarely see actual pavement use. They average less than 300lbs, have a brake power to weight ratio greater that most cars and trucks on the road and produce less emissions than most lawn care machinery (I.E. mowers, weed eaters, gas powered trimmers). In addition, these owners are willing to pay for both licensing plate fees, ORV tag fees and endorsement fee pertaining to these vehicles. Most if not all would also be willing to go through the inspection and certification that you the DOL previously deemed acceptable for on road certification in the years 1998, 1999, and 2000. This is a source of lost revenue and poor business practice.
        Thank you
        Jeremiah Fultz

  48. Mark Bezinque says:

    Magic !!! I post this at 2:15 PM today, and my original re-appears (Nov. 13 @ 11:30 AM)”Awaiting Moderation”

  49. corkster says:

    Mark- it seem like you are heading up this issue with more grit than most of us, we all should be working as a group to resolve this, we need the numbers and everybody should be involved who has been wronged by this issue, it will not fix itself, let me know if there is anything i can do, i know other people with this problem, maybe we can start something? you sound like a natural leader to head this up, thanks, Corkster.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Corkster, I am not a leader… just an old man tuned-up by an organization that sold me a street legal license plate… took my money… and then 35 days later took my license plate away. Then when I tried to explain my situation… they (DOL) have the nerve on the phone to tell me, “I should not have been sold the plate… and now I am just an unfortunate situation” I do not believe the residents of Washington “We the People” are going to stand for this waste of tax dollars, or a possible lawsuit for “government bungling” (quote from Rob McKenna’s article noted above) 10 years the DOL has plated my KTM after allowing it be converted to be street legal… and now it is not safe?
      If you wish to help, please send the DOL Blog Link to every Washington State resident you know. Let them decide if they view this “take-away” as I do. If they do… they are warned how the WSDOL operates today, and possibly in the future.
      I found it odd the WSDOL states on there web site proudly:
      What are the goals of rule making?
      The rule making process is designed to:
      • state our interpretation of the law.
      • write understandable rules.
      • ensure that the public is notified of our intent to propose rules on a subject.
      • encourage public participation in the rule-making process.
      • adopt rules that are technically accurate.
      • adopt rules that are not excessive, unreasonable, or unnecessary.
      Bullet #3 Did any of the 800 KTM owners get notified of DOL intent to propose rules on the subject?
      Bullet #4 Was any of the 800 KTM owner’s encouraged public participation in the rule-making process?
      Bullet #5 Adopt rules that are technically accurate? …the DOL statements I have noted in the Blog answer the DOL’s ability to be technically accurate when they state Laws/Rules/Policy.
      Bullet #6 Is the one bullet that I find most troubling for/from a State run agency. They stated it was a safety issue. I have asked for the facts and data… No DOL Response.
      I have asked how the motorcycles in question were safe for street use in WA from 1998-2010. The motorcycles in question are safe for the Federal Rangers in WA State to use on WA roads TODAY. The motorcycles in question are safe to use in other states TODAY, or BRING FROM OTHER STATES AND RIDE IN WASHINGTON. No DOL Response yet … it appears to me the DOL just adopted rules that ARE excessive, unreasonable, or unnecessary for some hidden agenda. I can not believe Glenn Ball (DOL) told me on 10-25-2010 he would address IF IN-FACT Federal Rangers actually had street legal off-road motorcycle today… then on 10-26-2010 when Toni Wilson called me to explain another question… I asked her about the Federal Rangers… and when I would get a response on it. Toni replied she was not aware of it… she then asked Glenn Ball (he was in the room during the call) and Glenn told Toni the DOL would address it. I think 26 days is plenty of time to respond… since I only had my license plate for 35 days.
      I hope that Attorney General Rob McKenna can bring some sunshine to the WSDOL and then “We the People” can get the documents of WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, and WHO all this Washington State DOL Tax Dollar waste started from.

  50. john schuller says:

    Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution:
    “no state shall pass any “ex post facto law.”
    In short…”when the offending act was performed, it was not prohibited.” In this instance the DOL action certainly has retroactive effects on both the use of my property and its value.

    If the Washingon Rule/Law/Policy did not adopt Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 until 10/17/2008 how is this not retroactive law.

    (This also applies to civil law (Calder v. Bull)).

    BTW, Myself and other riders have personally seen Feds on 2stroke KTMs with WA plates. So at least that agency has common sense enough to know they are “safe”.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      John, I called the Federal Rangers and they have confirmed they “safely” ride plated KTM and CRF motorcycles on WA roads. I just want to get my promised response from Glenn Ball (DOL)… he acted like he had no idea the Rangers had/rode these bikes. I have a post below, please correct me if I am looking at this wrong.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      John, The DOL has made it retroactive and illegally taken our plates. I hope Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office will soon start working my complaint. I am keeping track of lost days/miles/use of my KTM since 10/01/2010.

      • john schuller says:

        Mark,
        I think your points are accurate. However I don’t believe the state agencies we are dealing with are not going to be responsive to the citizens of this state. They have lawyers on staff, they know ex post facto law isn’t legal. They are self serving and respond well to one thing….lack of FUNDING.
        I am doing all I can to withhold my hard earned money from this state and hope others do the same. They do this crap because they have the people and resources to. Keep them broke, lay them all off, I don’t care a bit.

        Both of my reps say they will look into the situation next session, but I’m not sure its any priority for them.

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        John,
        I actually got a letter from my Senator: “Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen” yesterday!

        Mary Margaret said “This is obviously a major issue affecting many motorcycle owners. I chair the Senate Transportation Committee, and my staff have been looking closely at this issue and are brainstorming ways to address the concerns of you and many others who have contacted our office. It is important to note that no matter what, the legislature is not able to act on this issue until the legislative session begins in January – and any bill moving through the process would take several months.”
        I view this as a positive… and plan to send her a thank note tomorrow. I also want to make sure her office is following this DOL blog!

      • tjschul says:

        Mark,
        You can reach me at temp email:
        tjschul@yahoo.com

        I’m interested in your research and course of action.

  51. Mark Bezinque says:

    Anyone with help/comments please tell me if I am looking at this correctly:
    Where Washington DOL State RULE/LAW/POLICY on motorcycles is as of today 11/17/2010.
    WAC 204-10-021
    Adoption of federal standards.
    The Washington state patrol adopts by reference Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and any amendments thereto for vehicle equipment standards unless otherwise prescribed under state law. The FMVSS as outlined in Title 49 CFR 571 are as follows:
    [Statutory Authority: RCW 46.37.005 and 46.37.320. 08-19-079, § 204-10-021, filed 9/16/08, effective 10/17/08.]
    NOTE: The Effective DATE 10/17/08.

    Prior to the effective date 10/17/08… the Washington State RULE/LAW/POLICY was:
    Chapter 46.36.010 RCW Dispositions [1943 c 133 § 1; 1937 c 189 § 6; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6360-6; 1927 c 309 § 14, part; RRS § 6362-14, part.] Now codified as RCW 46.37.005.
    Please note this date…1943.

    Basically per RCW 46.36.010 and until 10/17/2008 a WA motorcycle had to have:
    Every motorcycle and every motor-driven cycle shall also comply with the requirements and limitations of:

    RCW 46.37.380 on horns and warning devices;

    RCW 46.37.390 on mufflers and prevention of noise;

    RCW 46.37.400 on mirrors; and

    RCW 46.37.420 on tires.
    (I cannot even find where it required DOT approved tires?)
    [1977 ex.s. c 355 § 53.]
    Also: RCW 46.37.320 Authority of state patrol regarding lighting devices or other safety equipment. (Additionally: RCW 46.37.070 Stop lamps and electric turn signals required)
    NOTE: No mention of blinkers required for motorcycles on either RCW.
    NOTE: No mention of a FMVSS identification plate. (Since Fed Std was not until 10/17/2008)
    NOTE: No mention of a steel fuel tank. (Just an FYI… Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) DOES ALLOW plastic fuel tanks for Cars/Trucks/Motorcycles)

    My suggestion:
    Any WA resident with a WA street legal plated motorcycle manufactured and licensed prior to 10/17/2008 that has received a ticket for equipment other then No Helmet, Mirrors, Horn, Headlight/Tail-light/Brake-light, or Mufflers… you should contact the court. From my research, there was nothing in/on WA RULES/LAWS/POLICY that required any additional equipment for a WA motorcycle prior to 10/17/2008. DOL or anyone please comment?
    My Opinion: If you received a ticket and you think it is invalid, (plastic fuel tank etc.) you should go to the court in the jurisdiction it was issued to request a refund. If the court gives you the refund, the DOL should then reimburse the jurisdiction like it plans to do for the current DOL Cell Phone Bungle/Oversight.
    This example is for DOL Bungle/Oversight Reference Only: “It could cost the state $1.3 million. DOL says the Cell Phone/Texting tickets were handed out between 2007 and June 30, 2010. It says a department oversight led to 17 laws not properly being updated in the state’s Model Traffic Ordinance, a rule book which gives city police officers authority to enforce state traffic laws. DOL says the reimbursement money will come from within the agency’s budget by deferring planned equipment replacements, printing and mailing savings and some savings from leaving vacant positions unfilled.” http://www.king5.com/news/Invalid-cell-phone-tickets-near-10000-says-DOL-99119144.html
    DOL please respond if I missed anything weeding thru the maze of WA RULES/LAWS/POLICY.

    Repeated Reminder: Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) was NOT adopted in WA until 10/17/2008.

    So… since 10/17/2008 Washington State NOW has:

    Vehicle equipment
    RCW 46.37.005
    State patrol — Additional powers and duties.
    In addition to those powers and duties elsewhere granted, the chief of the Washington state patrol shall have the power and the duty to adopt, apply, and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations (1) relating to proper types of vehicles or combinations thereof for hauling passengers, commodities, freight, and supplies, (2) relating to vehicle equipment, and (3) relating to the enforcement of the provisions of this title with regard to vehicle equipment, as may be deemed necessary for the public welfare and safety in addition to but not inconsistent with the provisions of this title.

    The chief of the Washington state patrol is authorized to adopt by regulation, federal standards relating to motor vehicles and vehicle equipment, issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, or any amendment to said act, notwithstanding any provision in Title 46 RCW inconsistent with such standards. Federal standards adopted pursuant to this section shall be applicable only to vehicles manufactured in a model year following the adoption of such standards.
    [1987 c 330 § 706; 1985 c 165 § 1; 1982 c 106 § 1; 1967 ex.s. c 145 § 56; 1967 c 32 § 49; 1961 c 12 § 46.37.005. Prior: 1943 c 133 § 1; 1937 c 189 § 6; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6360-6; 1927 c 309 § 14, part; RRS § 6362-14, part. Formerly RCW 46.36.010.]
    Notes:
    Construction — Application of rules — Severability — 1987 c 330: See notes following RCW 28B.12.050.
    Severability — 1967 ex.s. c 145: See RCW 47.98.043.
    DOL… Please read the last sentence very slowly: “Federal standards adopted pursuant to this section shall be applicable only to vehicles manufactured in a model year following the adoption of such standards.” I would call that grandfathering. And Washington State did not ADOPT Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) UNTIL 10/17/2008.
    Also: Washington State DID ALLOW off-road conversion and inspections by WSP Equipment for street legal use for 12 years. Now you (DOL) say the motorcycles in question are not safe and cannot be grandfathered?

    So my point/comment to all:
    Washington State found it safe to ride a motorcycle for 65 years to Chapter 46.36.010 RCW Dispositions [1943 c 133 § 1; 1937 c 189 § 6; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6360-6; 1927 c 309 § 14, part; RRS § 6362-14, part.] Now codified as RCW 46.37.005.
    Washington State found it safe to convert an off-road motorcycle to a street legal motorcycle and the WSP equipment INSPECTED the converted motorcycles per 65 year old Chapter 46.36.010 RCW Dispositions [1943 c 133 § 1; 1937 c 189 § 6; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6360-6; 1927 c 309 § 14, part; RRS § 6362-14, part.] Now codified as RCW 46.37.005.
    During this time… Washington State received tax dollars and issued street legal plates to SAFE motorcycles for at least 12 years!

    Now Washington State DOL has adopted a new RULE/LAW/POLICY in 2008 and wants to out-law motorcycles that prior to 10/17/2008 met Washington State RULE/LAW/POLICY (Chapter 46.36.010 RCW Dispositions).
    If Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office does not bring some Sunshine to this “Government Bungle/Oversight” with my filed complaint… I imagine several Washington Residents will see the WSDOL in court to waste even more Washington State Taxpayer Dollars, because this WSDOL agenda could spread to all motorcycles prior to 1971 that could not be per DOL statement: “the manufacturer of a motorcycle must certify that it meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and federal emission standards”

    DOL, please grandfather these motorcycles that met the Washington State RULE/LAW/POLICY before 10/17/2008… like the Federal Standards (you now call WA RULE/LAW/POLICY) has done with vehicles manufactured and licensed prior to the FEDERAL (not WA) adoption of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations in 1967. And please stop wasting Current and Possibly Future Washington Taxpayer Money.

    Just additional clarification… Washington State RULE/LAW/POLICY… DID NOT adopt the Federal Standards until 10/17/2008. (repeated a lot for a reason)

    • Jeremiah Fultz says:

      Mark,
      Most people do not know this if they are not mechanics but almost every car manufactured today has a plastic fuel tank. Even if it is not law, and the State tries to make it a point, that would make most cars on the road illegal.
      Thank you
      Jeremiah Fultz

      As a side note, I have been emailing our representative from a different approach, money! That is the language they understand. I do not mind paying for license plates, licensing fees, ORV tags, state inspection, or emissions fees as long as I can ride my bike from trail A to trail B, or from home to work (4.2 miles).
      There are places where the trail crosses a paved road and the cops will sit there and wait for you to drive across and write you a ticket. Very costly. They tell you that ” you should have pushed your bike across the road” as they give you a ticket.
      This could be eliminated and the state could still get their “funding” without citing US.
      Thank you
      Jeremiah Fultz

  52. Mark Bezinque says:

    I am adding a reply only to see if it will hold the post, since it (the post) continues to come and go from the Blog. Ref. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    November 13, 2010 at 11:30 am

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      DOL remove the post:
      Mark Bezinque says:
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      November 13, 2010 at 11:30 am.

      Or approve it thru moderation It has been like this for over a month.

  53. Mark Bezinque says:

    An example of Washington State having the AUTHORITY to grandfather motorcycles?
    RCW 46.37.530
    Motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, mopeds, electric-assisted bicycles — Helmets, other equipment — Children — Rules. … That mirrors shall not be required on any motorcycle or motor-driven cycle over twenty-five years old (currently that would be 1984/1985 model year) originally manufactured without mirrors and which has been restored to its original condition and which is being ridden to or from or otherwise in conjunction with an antique or classic motorcycle contest, show, or other such assemblage:

    PROVIDED FURTHER, That no mirror is required on any motorcycle manufactured prior to January 1, 1931;
    Pretty specific grandfathering in my opinion.

    More proof of WSDOL False statement: “Off road motorcycle Q&A on DOL Letter to 800 KTM owners dated August 27th 2010” (now not on blog Q&A???)
    Question: Can these be grandfathered in?
    DOL Answer: No Washington State does not have the authority under law to grandfather them in as street-legal cycles.”

    DOL correct me if I am wrong:
    Prior to 10/17/2008 WA had no law on the books to define an Off-Road… from an Enduro… from a Street Motorcycle. WSP was using WA RULE/LAW/POLICY for inspections.. NOT FMVSS.

    WA RULE/LAW/POLICY had equipment requirements per Chapter 46.36.010 RCW Dispositions [1943 c 133 § 1; 1937 c 189 § 6; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6360-6; 1927 c 309 § 14, part; RRS § 6362-14, part.] Now codified as RCW 46.37.005.

    Every motorcycle and every motor-driven cycle shall also comply with the requirements and limitations of:

    RCW 46.37.380 on horns and warning devices;

    RCW 46.37.390 on mufflers and prevention of noise;

    RCW 46.37.400 on mirrors; NOTE: exception to GRANDFATHERING per RCW 46.37.530

    RCW 46.37.420 on tires.
    (I cannot even find where it required DOT approved tires?)
    [1977 ex.s. c 355 § 53.]
    Also: RCW 46.37.320 Authority of state patrol regarding lighting devices or other safety equipment. (Additionally: RCW 46.37.070 Stop lamps and electric turn signals required)
    NOTE: No mention of blinkers required for motorcycles on either RCW.

    Not until 10/17/2008 when this RULE/LAW/POLICY was put on the books did WA have any RULE/LAW/POLICY defining OFF-ROAD: WAC 204-10-021
    Adoption of federal standards.
    The Washington state patrol adopts by reference Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and any amendments thereto for vehicle equipment standards unless otherwise prescribed under state law. The FMVSS as outlined in Title 49 CFR 571 are as follows:
    [Statutory Authority: RCW 46.37.005 and 46.37.320. 08-19-079, § 204-10-021, filed 9/16/08, effective 10/17/08.]
    NOTE: The Effective DATE 10/17/08.

    DOL if this is not correct… respond with the correct RULE/LAW/POLICY.

    Also repond on how legal it is to retroactive an ADOPTED Law on Motorcycles that met the requirements prior to the new adopted law… when the FMVSS grandfathers the model year following a new RULE/LAW/POLICY adoption/change?

  54. John Coulbourn says:

    I am a new victim of this issue. No letter from the DOL, I simply stumbled across this when I attempted to renew my tabs on my 2001 WR426 which expire 12/31.

    Using the Attorney General’s website I submitted my complaint and received a nice but no help response, which was to suggest I work with my legislators and seek personal representation if I wish to fight it.

    I also contacted KOMO’s Problem Solvers via their website but no response.

    Next I’ll contact my reps. I too am interested if anyone gets farther with this.

    my contact info: alwayzridin@hotmail.com

    • john schuller says:

      Welcome to the club. Looks like its affecting other than KTM bikes now. Get in touch with your reps
      ASAP.

      Bottom line is they say they are “correcting” how the plating was handled back whenever the paperwork was originally done.
      Most of us argue they are trying to retroactively apply WAC 204-10-021, which was effective 10/17/08.
      Both California and Nevada have had similar issues
      resolved by “grandfathering/inspection” of offending bikes.
      Some Nevada info here: http://my2wheels.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-4486.html

      Why this can’t be a course of action here, is the difference between wanting to serve the citizens of a state, and wanting to show you who’s in charge.

      “Work to de-fund the bureaucrats in Wash State” that’s how we all win.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      John C,
      When the DOL trys to tell you they DOL or WSP do not do motorcycle inspections when requested, please ask the DOL to explain this note I got from the WSP Equipment. (Sept. 20, 2010)

      Note: WSP equipment calls it LAW… Not Rule or Policy or a Program… LAW. Why else would a Law Enforcement Officer be doing the inspection?

      Ref DOL statement: “Question: I feel it does meet the safety standards; can I have it inspected?
      DOL Answer: No, Washington State DOES NOT PERFORM SAFETY INSPECTIONS FOR VEHICLES, and will not re-classify an off-road vehicle for street use. The manufacturer must provide certification that the motorcycle meets federal safety standards before it can be licensed.”

      To: Mark Bezinque
      From: Equipment
      September 20, 2010

      This is in response to your e-mail to Ms. VanGorkom

      Washington State has always performed motorcycle inspections when requested… according to Washington State law, if the Department of Licensing is not sure how to classify a vehicle based on the paperwork that is provided to them, they can require an inspection of the motorcycle.

      Hopefully this provides you with the information you need. If you would like additional information regarding our inspection process, you may access some FAQs online at http://www.wsp.wa.gov/traveler/vinspect.htm.

      Thank you for your inquiry.
      Sincerely,
      Equipment

      My Comment:
      WSP “LAW” enforcement officers performed the 1998-2000 off-road conversion inspections to:
      Chapter 46.36.010 RCW Dispositions [1943 c 133 § 1; 1937 c 189 § 6; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6360-6; 1927 c 309 § 14, part; RRS § 6362-14, part.] Now codified as RCW 46.37.005.
      Which says a motorcycle needs:
      Every motorcycle and every motor-driven cycle shall also comply with the requirements and limitations of:

      RCW 46.37.380 on horns and warning devices;

      RCW 46.37.390 on mufflers and prevention of noise;

      RCW 46.37.400 on mirrors; NOTE: exception to GRANDFATHERING per RCW 46.37.530

      RCW 46.37.420 on tires.
      (I cannot even find where it required DOT approved tires?)
      [1977 ex.s. c 355 § 53.]
      Also: RCW 46.37.320 Authority of state patrol regarding lighting devices or other safety equipment. (Additionally: RCW 46.37.070 Stop lamps and electric turn signals required)
      NOTE: No mention of blinkers required for motorcycles on either RCW.

      DOL please correct my post if in error.

      • DOL Blog says:

        Mr. Bezinque, you are free to post your opinions (within the terms of the blog use policy), but we are not able to provide legal advice to citizens in this forum.

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        DOL… Really ???
        You (DOL) stated on 12/10/2010 “…but we are not able to provide legal advice to citizens in this forum.”

        Yet (REF below) you are helping Grace Brown on a DOL BLOG.
        Are you just discriminating against ORANGE KTM owners when we ask for DOL help to understand WA Rules/LAWS/Policy?

        Grace Brown says:
        June 21, 2010 at 9:41 pm
        01 i
        Rate This
        I frequently caravan with other vintage trailer enthusists and we use hand held walkie talkies to communicate while traveleing.(directions, request rest or gas stops, etc)..does the new law include the use of walkie talkies?

        Reply
        DOL Blog says:
        June 23, 2010 at 12:26 pm
        01 i
        Rate This
        We certainly won’t claim to speak for the many police agencies around the state when it comes to particular enforcement questions, but the law does specifically address holding ‘wireless communiucations devices’ to your EAR. Typically, using a hand-held walkie talkie doesn’t require it to be held to your EAR. The law is here. And an abbreviated ‘executive summary’ is here.

        Reply

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        http://licensingexpress.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/new-cell-phone-texting-law-takes-effect-thursday/#comments

  55. Mark Bezinque says:

    Info Only, anyone reply if not correct:

    Washington State Constitution

    PREAMBLE
    We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.

    ARTICLE I
    DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

    SECTION 23 BILL OF ATTAINDER, EX POST FACTO LAW, ETC.
    No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of CONTRACTS shall ever be passed.

    CON•TRACT (kŏn’trăkt’) n.
    An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. (example: an inspection by the WSP to allow street legal status)
    The writing or document containing such an agreement.
    The branch of law dealing with formal agreements between parties.

  56. john schuller says:

    Word on the street is that all DOL actions related to this mess are halted, at least temporarily, pending meeting with WA motorcycle dealers association and WSP.

    DOL…is this true?

    • DOL Blog says:

      DOL is proceeding with correcting the records of improperly registered off-road motorcycles. We have been in contact with agency partners and stakeholders, but no meetings with stakeholder groups have been scheduled.

  57. Shayne Downing says:

    Rep. Charles Ross (District 14) and Sen. Curtis King have been kind enough to agree to meet with myself and some members of my MC / ATC club over here in Yakima on January 5th to discuss this issue. We intend to point out the rather ridiculous nature of what has occurred here and illustrate the numerous ways in which this measure by DOL / WSP has targeted a specific segment of vehicle user. When presented with all the facts, it becomes blazingly evident that this is nothing more than over reaching government wasting tax payer dollars. I encourage everyone concerned to contact your District Representative and discuss this issue. Unfortunately we live in an era where these types of measures have replaced the more effective torches and pitchforks of days past.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Shayne,

      Alan Haight, DOL’s deputy director and manager of 1300 DOL employees since Jan.2003 says:
      “ULTIMATELY, this comes down to PUBLIC SAFETY,”
      Ref. http://www.dol.wa.gov/about/news/2010/201009dirtBikes.html

      Definition of ULTIMATELY
      1. The basic or fundamental fact, element, or principle.
      2. The final point; the conclusion.
      3. The greatest extreme; the maximum

      Definition of PUBLIC SAFETY… refers to the welfare and protection of the general public. It is usually expressed as a governmental responsibility. Most states have departments for public safety. The primary goal of the department is prevention and protection of the public from dangers affecting safety such as CRIMES or DISASTERS. In many cases the public safety division will be comprised of individuals from other organizations including police, emergency medical services, fire force etc.

      Please ask your legislators to get the DOL’s Facts and Data on CRIMES or DISASTERS caused by KTM motorcycles.
      Since I cannot get the DOL to respond with any accidents due to lack of equipment or quality of KTM motorcycles (Let alone CRIMES or DISASTERS). I assume with all of Alan’s drama in his statement, the DOL must have loads of FACTS and DATA for OUR State Legislators.

      Additionally ask… how the DOL and Attorney General’s office can SERIOUSLY state on an Official DOL e-mail that my Washington State Patrol Inspection on a street legal conversion is not considered Street Legal!
      REF Tony Sermonti e-mail to Mark Bezinque Tuesday, December 14, 2010 3:54:13 PM (Tony is yet to post his response on the DOL Blog)

      DOL Statement:
      “We DO NOT believe that the vehicle inspection that the motorcycle in question underwent made it LEGAL for street use.”

      I guess the DOL management and the ATG can just ATTEMPT to ignore contracts, law, and The Washington State Constitution when they please.

      Thanks and Good Luck tomorrow!
      Please post the outcome!

  58. Mark Bezinque says:

    DOL spokesmen Brad Benfield and Tony Sermonti please contact Susan L. Pierini, Assistant Attorney General who represents the Department of Licensing (DOL) along with my Senator Mary Margaret Haugen (chair of the Senate Transportation Committee) and PLEASE respond as ONE government team with a TRUE or FALSE to each item below. If the item is FALSE… PLEASE state the WAC/RWC/RULE/LAW/POLICY/PROGRAM that proves it FALSE.

    1. The FMVSS are federal laws that ONLY apply to manufactures and dealers as far as how a vehicle must be SOLD in the United States.

    2. What makes a vehicle LEGAL for use on a public roadway is the domain of each individual State. Reference: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html

    3. WAC 204-10-021 was not effective/put on the books by WA until 10/17/2008.

    4. A vehicle title is an “Owner PAID FOR” legal document that declares ownership of the vehicle to the specified person(s) listed on the title.

    5. Information found on a title includes the owner’s name and address, VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS, USE CLASS, and any lienholders.

    6. Prior to 10/17/2008 there was no WA RULE/LAW/POLICY to determine a motorcycle from off-road, enduro, dual-sport, street use, or even a motorcycle that was converted per the WSP Equipment/Inspection. (WAC 204-10-021 was not adopted by WA until 10/17/2008)

    7. Any motorcycle that met the WA requirements prior to 10/17/2008 and was street legal license plated by WSDOL was in a legally enforceable agreement between the state of Washington and the owner of the vehicle.

    8. The vehicle title is a legal document attesting to the truth of certain stated facts. (REM, no adoption of FMVSS prior to 10/17/2008)

    9. There was no RULE/LAW/POLICY addressing OFF-ROAD motorcycles prior 10/17/2008 not being allowed street legal status.

    10. Prior to 10/17/2008 a motorcycle in WA required a Head-light/Tail-light/Brake-light, 2-mirrors, horn and muffler.

    11. Per WSP Equipment you (DOL) could and would require an inspection buy LAW enforcement officers/inspectors if you had a question to how a motorcycle should be titled for use-class.

    12. The LAW enforcement officers/inspectors would have used: Chapter 46.36.010 RCW Dispositions [1943 c 133 § 1; 1937 c 189 § 6; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6360-6; 1927 c 309 § 14, part; RRS § 6362-14, part.] Now codified as RCW 46.37.005. (prior to 10/17/2008)

    13. Buy revoking license plates from ANY motorcycle that met Chapter 46.36.010 PRIOR to MODEL YEAR 2009… (ref: “Vehicle equipment RCW 46.37.005 State patrol — Additional powers and duties …Federal standards adopted pursuant to this section shall be applicable only to vehicles manufactured in a model year following the adoption of such standards”) The DOL is breaking Washington State Constitution, SECTION 23 BILL OF ATTAINDER, EX POST FACTO LAW, ETC. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed.

    MORE:

    14. A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties with mutual obligations.

    15. LEGAL DOCUMENTED AGREEMENT: Party # 1(WA resident) converts a motorcycle to meet party # 2’s RULE/LAW/POLICY/PROGRAM (WSP equipment/DOL). Party # 1 then PAYS party # 2 to inspect the motorcycle to party # 2’s RULE/LAW/POLICY/PROGRAM with the agreement party # 1 can ride legally on Party # 2’s roadways.

    16. Contract law is based on the principle expressed in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda, which is usually translated “agreements to be kept” but more literally means “pacts must be kept”.

    17. By not allowing WSP Inspected motorcycles to keep/re-new street legal plates, Washington State has not kept the pact… and broke Washington State Constitution: SECTION 23 BILL OF ATTAINDER, EX POST FACTO LAW, ETC. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or LAW impairing the obligations of CONTRACTS shall ever be passed.

    Thank you in advance for your response.

    • DOL Blog says:

      The DOL Blog is not a forum for providing legal advice to citizens. Detailed information about the state’s action to correct the improper registrations of off-road motorcycles and the justification for doing so already is posted on this blog.

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        DOL… Really ???
        You (DOL) stated on 12/10/2010 “…The DOL Blog is not a forum for providing legal advice to citizens.”

        Yet (REF below) you are helping Grace Brown on a DOL BLOG.
        Are you just discriminating against ORANGE KTM owners when we ask for DOL help to understand WA Rules/LAWS/Policy?

        Grace Brown says:
        June 21, 2010 at 9:41 pm
        01 i
        Rate This
        I frequently caravan with other vintage trailer enthusists and we use hand held walkie talkies to communicate while traveleing.(directions, request rest or gas stops, etc)..does the new law include the use of walkie talkies?

        Reply
        DOL Blog says:
        June 23, 2010 at 12:26 pm
        01 i
        Rate This
        We certainly won’t claim to speak for the many police agencies around the state when it comes to particular enforcement questions, but the law does specifically address holding ‘wireless communiucations devices’ to your EAR. Typically, using a hand-held walkie talkie doesn’t require it to be held to your EAR. The law is here. And an abbreviated ‘executive summary’ is here.

        Reply

  59. john schuller says:

    Here’s a link to an interesting letter from the Chief Counsel for the Federal Dept of Transportation to the Washington State Patrol, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, regarding conversion for off road bikes to street use.

    http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/21708.ztv.html

    In this letter (dated 6/26/00) regarding conversion of bikes using ‘Baja kits’, the Federal DOT states “For purposes of compliance with DOT laws and regulations, we regard the converter as the manufacturer.” This appears to leave open the door for an individual to assume the role of manufacturer, and use the state’s reconstructed vehicle titling process to do a conversion, including certifying compliance of the vehicle to Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30112. (In other words, adding all federally required equipment to make a motorcycle street legal and assuming responsibility for such, in lieu of the original manufacturer). The letter from the DOT further states “We encourage all States to refuse to license vehicles for use on their roadways unless they are certified by their manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS.” Since I am considered to be the manufacturer of the converted bike, it follows that it is I (not KTM), that now assumes responsibility of certifying compliance with applicable FMVSS.
    Please explain why an individual who has only modified his or her own motorcycle, cannot certify FMVSS compliance.

  60. Mark Bezinque says:

    John,
    You appear to be correct… a motorcycle may be converted to meet FMVSS per the Feds. Below are a couple things I found.
    Ref this info about installing your own FMVSS label on page 26,27 of: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/maninfo/mcpkg002.pdf?cm_sp=ExternalLink-_-Federal-_-DOT

    Another:(I cannot add more then ONE link or the Blog will fail… so just Google the following words for the entire info) An additional requirement for the lawful importation of a nonconforming vehicle is that it be imported by a registered importer (RI) or by an INDIVIDUAL who has contracted with an RI to bring the vehicle into conformity with all applicable FMVSS. A bond in an amount equivalent to 150 percent of the declared value of the vehicle must be given at the time of importation to ensure that the necessary MODIFICATIONS are completed within 120 days of entry.

    • john schuller says:

      Mark,
      Looks like the Federal DOT agrees with us. The ‘Dear Motor Cycle Manufacturer’ letter you link to spells out how to comply with Federal regulations as a manufacturer. Most of the instructions deal with how to determine a serial number. The letter I link to above states the following:
      “Where an individual has only modified his or her own motorcycle, we would not insist that the single converted vehicle be furnished with a VIN meeting Part 565, as compliance is not needed to achieve the purpose of the regulation. In this instance, a State may assign a VIN to the motorcycle.”

      I think it may be entirely possible for a single, personally owned motorcycle to be converted using existing RCW:
      Scraping vehicle-RCW 46.12.070
      Examination of rebuilt vehicle-RCW 46.12.030

      EXACTLY WHAT OTHERS STATES HAVE ALLOWED, using various forms and paperwork to shift the onus from the original manufacturer to the ‘converter/current owner’ of the new street legal vehicle. Wonder why?

  61. Mark Bezinque says:

    This post is for the DOL Bloggers to read how our WA DOL and ATG perceive WA Rule/Law/Policy, and also how our WA DOL and ATG perceive Federal Rule/Law/Policies not on the WA books until 10/17/2008, and future Federal Laws they do not agree with.
    (You would think some “Lessons Learned” would have been applied at the DOL… after WA cities had no authority to issue cell phone tickets when laws were NOT adopted properly. Note: Because of a 3-year long DOL MTO-rule making bungle, the DOL is now refunding 1.2 million dollars) Google, king5.com Hundreds-of-cell-phone-tickets-not-valid-98478019.html.

    My Request: Tony Sermonti, Communications & Public Affairs, please post on the DOL Blog… your entire letter/response sent to me on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 3:54:13 PM.

    I would like the DOL Blog community to read it… and BE ASSURED it is YOUR WORDS… and not mine!

    After Tony posts, I want to openly comment to all DOL statements (example #1): “… we do not agree with your contention that the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply to your motorcycle simply because the Washington State Patrol adopted them as a part of Washington Administrative Code in October of 2008. The safety standards in question were a part of federal law prior to that date.”

    FYI- Seattle PI dated 12/08/2010, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/431425_realid08.html
    “State still says ‘no way’ on new federal ID rules”
    Alan Haight, Department of Licensing (DOL) deputy director recently told the Senate Transportation Committee that Washington State will purposely be OUT OF COMPLIANCE with the federal government’s “REAL ID” program for enhanced security driver’s licenses which will be required by the Homeland Security Department for travel.

    My comment: This proves how unethical the WA DOL is.
    They (DOL) want to preach a Federal Law that was not adopted by the State to safe KTM owners… while they create bogus laws in 2007 to help WA State BREAK the future Federal Law in May of 2011 on a program that may help the Feds secure our borders.

    Think about it, KTM owners with NO un-safe statistics or Homeland Security.
    The DOL is a disgrace; take the 25 heads/money you (DOL) are whining about needing from your bogus KTM Project and help the Feds with Homeland Security.
    The governor should be proud of her current unethical DOL management.

    And I REALLY want to comment in length on that DOL statement (example #2): “We DO NOT believe that the vehicle inspection that the motorcycle in question underwent made it LEGAL for street use.”

    My quick comment: Outrageous!

    Below is my letter sent to Tony Sermonti on Monday, December 13, 2010 11:14 PM for bloggers to review… while we wait for Tony to post his DOL reply letter sent me on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 3:54:13 PM.

    Subject: Re: questions
    Tony,
    I did get your e-mail… Sorry for not responding.
    Thanks for the info.
    I called Susan Pierini to get her response back on a few additional questions I had.
    Verbally this afternoon (12-13-2010) Susan said she has sent those questions back to the client (the DOL) and she would call you (Tony Sermonti) to see if the DOL has a response ready.
    I am CC (edited) Susan Pierini via XX, also Brad Benfield, XX, XX, Liz Luce & Glenn Ball via XX and my Senator Mary Margaret Haugen to assure communications are sent to all and correct.
    I have also CC’d Washington State Rep Cary Condotta and (edited) XX.
    Tony, it appears I do not have Brad Benfield’s E-mail address.
    Can you send this to Brad to keep him in the loop, and send me his e-mail address?
    It would be great if I could also get Glenn Ball and Liz Luce’s E-mail addresses to save (edited) XX from forwarding.
    Thanks for your time,
    Mark Bezinque

    Below is a copy of my questions sent to Susan on Nov. 22nd 2010, and also my questions on the DOL Blog dated Dec 9th 2010.

    Susan L. Pierini
    Assistant Attorney General
    Thank you for your response.
    You are correct… your letter was not the response I was hoping for.
    But it did supply me with some additional information/assistance.
    Since you are the Assistant Attorney General who represents the Department of Licensing (DOL), can you please respond to a couple of additional questions I have?
    I have the questions following your first responses.
    Thank you for your help in advance.
    Mark Bezinque

    RE: Off Road Motorcycles-WSP inspection
    Dear Mr. Bezinque,
    On behalf of Attorney General Robert McKenna, thank you for your communication of November 15, 2010. Your complaint was referred to me as I am an Assistant Attorney General who represents the Department of Licensing (DOL). In your letter you state that you have received notice that your motorcycle has been erroneously registered as a street legal vehicle, and that it was inspected 10-12 years ago and found to pass inspection as a street legal vehicle.
    The Attorney General’s Office is the designated legal advisor to various state agencies and state officers and by law can only give legal advice to state agencies and elected officials. However, we do try to provide general information to citizens when we can. Thus, the information below is not a formal opinion of the Attorney General nor is it legal advice addressing the merits of your dilemma.

    My Response: Thank you again for responding, and I understand it is not the Formal Opinion of the Attorney General office.

    Your comment: “To be eligible for Washington state registration as a street-legal vehicle, a motorcycle must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and federal emission standards.”

    My questions: What was the effective date when Washington State Adopted the FMVSS as Rule/Law/Policy?
    If the effective date of the FMVSS adoption was after the licensing of my motorcycle and the State is now applying this rule to me retroactively, is this not an example of enforcing law ex post facto?
    How does Washington State deal with motorcycles manufactured prior to 1971 if “a motorcycle must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and federal emission standards” since no such standard existed prior to that time?
    Are these motorcycles not “grandfathered”, even though DOL says “grandfathering” is not an option?

    Your comment: “Despite the WSP inspection, a motorcycle must still meet these standards. It is of note that the WSP discontinued this program.”

    My questions: Is it legal for Washington State to discontinue a program and then retroactively revoke license plates from the vehicle the WSP and WSDOL once found to be safe and legal for road use in Washington State?

    By what authority did the WSP discontinue this program?

    The DOL claims these vehicles cannot be inspected and grandfathered like they have been in other states where the same import paperwork issues have surfaced.

    Please cite the RCW/WAC that prohibits retroactive inspection of affected motorcycles by the WSP?

    My Comment: I am not being sarcastic in any way when I say this.
    I find it odd when I talk with the DOL (verbally)… they always spin this WSP inspection of street legal conversation as a Rule or a Policy (never Law). Now you have referred to it as a Program. I would like to know what a WSP officer would have told me from 1998 to 2000 when describing the WSP inspections. I am guessing the WSP officer would have said it was a Law since he is a Law Enforcement Officer doing the Inspections per some type of Rule/Law/Policy/Program. (Just my thoughts)

    Your comment: “DOL was notified by law enforcement officers who report increasing contact with operators of off-road motorcycles licensed for street use. After researching this issue, DOL learned a lack of documentation from manufacturers has existed for several years.”

    My question: Is it possible to say that nearly all European motorcycles since the beginning of time… lacked documentation from manufacturers?

    Your comment: “This resulted in many motorcycles manufactured for off-road use being inappropriately licensed as street legal. In most cases, the manufacturer’s statement of origin (MSOs) did not have any message about the intended use of the motorcycle, which is out of compliance with state code.”

    My question: Does Washington State require unique import documentation separate and distinct from other states?

    Your comment: “In other cases, DOL found other messages like “competition use only.”

    My Comment: Not the situation on my KTM.
    My KTM was factory equipped with headlight/taillight and has no “competition use only.” referenced anywhere on the bike or accompanying literature.
    This is not a Moto-Cross (competition) bike.
    The proper terminology for my KTM motorcycle is an “Enduro” meaning dual use, i.e. both street and off road capable.

    November 19, 2010 Page 2
    Without more information about your situation, and given the limitation explained above, it is difficult for me to provide meaningful assistance. If you wish to continue your research on your own, the Department of Licensing website is extensive and is a good resource:
    (Edited to keep blog from hanging) http_www.dol.wa.gov_.
    State law, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is online at:
    (Edited to keep blog from hanging) http_apps.leg.wa.gov_RCW_.

    You may wish to consult with a private attorney, who would be in a better position than I to advise you of your legal options. Another option to consider is to work with your legislator to amend the law, to specifically include an exemption for your vehicle.
    Due to the nature of your question, I realize this may not be the response you were hoping for but I hope the information I provided is of assistance.

    My Final Question: Does your office have any response to how the DOL sold me a street legal plate on 07-23-2010 and processed my title when it had a Use Class of “ORV” (as opposed to “CYC”) on the original Title? (My KTM has been street legal since 04/15/2000)
    Then the DOL sends me a letter to revoke the plate and title about 1 week after I got/received my new title in the mail.
    I would think your office should have some concern about this.
    If this was a private business, I would hope your office would investigate the business’ process/policies/procedures.

    My Final Response: I have contacted Senator Mary Margaret Haugen and she has responded with some hopeful news.
    I am going to CC Senator Mary Margaret Haugen, and hope you will CC her with your responses to my latest questions to keep her office in the loop.
    Thank you again,
    Mark Bezinque

    Additional FYI for this DOL blog post: This letter also included a cut and paste of my DOL Blog post, December 9, 2010 at 10:52 pm.

  62. Brandon Wagner says:

    I am new to this. I never received a notification about this change. I am trying to understand why the “Federal Motor Vehical Standards” are not being adopted by other states like Idaho. I asked a DOL employee about Idaho licensed residents riding there “Converted” bikes here in Washington. THis employee stated that it is ok for them to do so. It is just not ok for the same person to move to Washington to ride the same “converted” bike licensed in Washington on the same roads as before. How does this make sence. No wonder Washington is going bankrupt. Notice Idaho is not. Hmmmm…

    • john schuller says:

      And its exactly why people retire and leave ASAP.
      This state has no interest in what its citizens want. Its a mommy state, and will tell you what you will need for your own good.

      ….”We don’t need a good reason, its purely our bureaucratic BS, and we are shoving it down your throats.”

      The sooner they go broke the better–do your part!

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        Just an FYI for possible protest against the WA DOL:

        (Currently) If you want to cut WA out of your fuel tax dollars… you can buy your gas at a TRIBAL STATION.
        The refunds are based on agreements Governor Christine Gregoire signed with the state’s Tribes in 2007. The agreements refund 75 percent of state taxes collected on fuel sold at Tribal stations — approximately 28 cents per gallon. The agreements provide that the reimbursed monies are to be used by the Tribes for police and transportation services, but allow Tribes to decide how the money is spent on those services.

        http://www.nativelegalupdate.com/2010/06/articles/tribal-gas-tax-refunds-challenged/

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        Lots of Info on 2009 DOL Salaries. (change the 09 on the link below to get data from past and possible future years)

        Liz Luce $10049.00 per month 120K+ per yr.

        Alan Haight $9521.00 per month 114K+ per yr.

        Glenn Ball $8048.00 per month 96K+ per yr.

        http://lbloom.net/dol09.html

  63. Jeremiah Fultz says:

    Mark,
    Sorry about your situation and others like you. I am working to get a law passed to allow off-road motorcycles to be inspected and plated. This can happen, but we have to appeal to their nature, Greed.
    The governing bodies are hurting for money (their own doing) and that is the in. The following argument should be used.
    Off-road motorcycles are an untapped source of income for the State of WA. Fees can be levied for inspection and certification, plates, registration, endorsement, and ORV fees. As it stands now dual purpose motorcycles that have plates are not required to have ORV tags. These should be required on all motorcycles to be used off-road but only if the State is willing to issue plates for street use.
    Off-road motorcycles converted will not be required to meet FMVSS standards as these vehicles are conversions or purpose built “kitted” machines that will see limited on-road use and have little road impact. Converted vehicles will conform to State law requiring working head, tail, and stop lamps, required horn, and mirrors as per the following:

    RCW 46.37.380 on horns and warning devices;

    RCW 46.37.390 on mufflers and prevention of noise;

    RCW 46.37.400 on mirrors; NOTE: exception to GRANDFATHERING per RCW 46.37.530

    Forward this proposal to everyone you know and have them forward to their Representatives.
    Thank you
    Jeremiah Fultz

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Jeremiah,

      Good Luck on your attempts.

      Just beware from 1998-2000 the DOL and WSP allowed conversion to street legal via WSP inspections. Now the good-faith/tax-paying/law-abiding motorcycle owner with one of these converted/inspected motorcycles has a contract that is null and void per their last response to me.

      DOL Statement on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 3:54:13 PM:
      “We DO NOT believe that the vehicle inspection that the motorcycle in question underwent made it LEGAL for street use.”

      The word/agreements/contracts The State of Washington makes with her citizens are only as good as the current unethical managers.

      The current Attorney General’s office and the DOL managers will choose which State and/or Federal Law will be preached to motorcycle owners, and change it when they please without grandfathering.

      Absolutely no Checks and Balances with these two government offices!

      • Jeremiah Fultz says:

        Mark,
        Thanks for the info, I will be passing this along to my political contacts to see if they can get an answer or resolution. We can fight all we want to for our own personal needs but our elected officials will not listen unless it forwards their agend (greed, power, control, etc..) so that is where my aproach differs. I have had great response from local official with my proposition because it is a way to get more “funding” which the next level of poloticians like. You have to start local and let it make its way up the ladder so the person on the next rung can claim it as their own idea ( B.S. politics 101).This cannot be approached as an aggenda for a small group but a way of increasing revanue for multiple departments. I know this sound like a lot of waisted time and energy but that is why nothing gets done correctly in our government. It is like hearding cattle, if steer one alittle at a time it will lead the others, if you spook one they will stampeed do just the opposite of what you want and trample you!
        Thank you
        Jeremiah Fultz

  64. Shayne Downing says:

    I just had a meeting today with Senator Curtis King and Representative Charles Ross (14th District)with regards to this issue. Based on common sense and the facts contained in all of the FMVSS’s, WAC’s, RCW’s, etc. there is not a single reason a SENSIBLE person can come up that a vehicle meeting all FMVSS’s i.e. having all required safety features should not be allowed to be licensed for road use (regardless of what the original MSO states). Once I convert my bike to meet FMVSS’s, I take on the role and responsibility of manufacturer (exactly how it is done with custom built choppers in this state). MSO’s for these custom built choppers say nothing about “safety” or even “road-worthiness”….trust me…I’ve built several of them. As builder, I take on the responsibility of road-worthiness just like I would if I bolt on a street legal conversion kit (Baja Designs). Specific examples were shown and both Senator King and Representative Ross recognized the ridiculous nature of what the state has done by relinquishing the ability to street legalize these vehicles. I showed pictures of street legal Vespa scooters, chopper trikes, Can-Am Roadsters (a.k.a snowmobile with wheels), custom built choppers, and even now street-legal golf carts. I think the point was well taken. We need to just keep fighting and making our Representatives aware of how truely foolish this whole issue is and what a ridiculous waste of tax dollars it is.

    • John Schuller says:

      Shayne,
      You found a couple of reps willing to sit and listen to reason, I applaud you all.
      The letter from the Feds referenced above (http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/21708.ztv.html) to the state, says exactly what you did…. YOU become the manufacturer and YOU assume the responsibility! Our DOL was made aware of this long ago. What you describe is how other states have handled the same issues, we’re just getting smoke blown our way by the DOL in this state. A sticking point is going to be that the state patrol here, looks at it as their option as to whether they will do an inspection. This needs to be made a mandate on them, with the vehicle owner bearing the cost.

      John Schuller

  65. Mark Bezinque says:

    Jeremiah and Shayne,
    Thanks for your research and postings !!!

    I have to put this out again for Brad Benfield of the DOL since we had a verbal conversation yesterday (01/04/11), and does not agree…the Feds FMVSS is NOT for the licensing of vehicles, and WA has never had FMVSS on the books until 2008.

    “…(FMVSS). Federal law DOES NOT address the licensing or operation of motor vehicles, which is LEFT to the STATES.”

    Brad below is another link like John Schuller posted above. (NOTE John’s link is FROM WSP to the FEDs… read it!!!)

    And please help your bosses and the ATG read this link.

    http://www.highwaydirtbikes.com/HDB_Shop/index.php?app=ccp0&ns=display&ref=dotregs

  66. Mark Bezinque says:

    Shayne,
    It appears Senator Curtis King along with Senators Haugen, Holmquist Newbry had the 1st reading of Bill 5027 either yesterday or today.

    SB 5027 – 2011-12 (What is this?)

    Requiring motorcycle manufacturers to indicate whether a motorcycle is for off-road use only.

    Go to documents…

    History of Bill
    as of Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:27 PM

    Sponsors: Senators Haugen, King, Holmquist Newbry

    2011 REGULAR SESSION
    Dec 28 Prefiled for introduction.
    Jan 10 First reading, referred to Transportation.

    Ref:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5027&year=2011#history

    I called and talked with Senator Haugen’s communications specialist, but he did not have much info to report. Please post any info you can from your contacts.

    Additionally I talked with Tony Sermonti last Friday and he promised to post his letter sent to me Tuesday, December 14, 2010 3:54:13 PM.

    Both Tony and Brad have said verbally they have not been reading the DOL blog… I find this odd since they are the DOL spokesmen ???

  67. Mark Bezinque says:

    Additional info from the .pdf

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5027.pdf

    S-0031.1 _____________________________________________
    SENATE BILL 5027
    _____________________________________________
    State of Washington 62nd Legislature 2011 Regular Session
    By Senators Haugen, King, and Holmquist Newbry
    Read first time 01/10/11. Referred to Committee on Transportation.
    1 AN ACT Relating to requiring motorcycle manufacturers to indicate
    2 whether a motorcycle is for off-road use only; and adding a new section
    3 to chapter 46.70 RCW.
    4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
    5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 46.70 RCW
    6 to read as follows:
    7 To ensure that motorcycles are accurately registered with the
    8 department, if a motorcycle does not meet federal motor vehicle safety
    9 standards, the manufacturer’s statement of origin or certificate of
    10 origin must include a statement indicating that the motorcycle is for
    11 off-road use only.
    — END —
    p. 1 SB 5027

  68. Mark Bezinque says:

    Legislative Officer of ABATE of Washington:
    Donnie Landsman

    Washington Off Highway Vehicle Alliance (WOHVA):
    John Eaton

    Washington State Senators:
    Senator Mary Margaret Haugen. 10th District, Camano Island
    Senator Curtis King, 14th District, Yakima
    Senator Jerome Delvin, 8th District, Richland

    Washington State Patrol:
    Captain Jason Berry Government and Media Relations

    Washington DOL:
    Toni Wilson
    Glenn Ball

    Thank you all for your willingness to solve this street-legal motorcycle issue!

    Reference: Jan 20 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM.
    Televised on channel 23 TVW

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Just an FYI on what was said during the Jan. 20th Senate Committee on Transportation.
      There is no way I can note all said… so understand this is a quick review of how I heard/viewed the broadcast.

      Toni Wilson and Glenn Ball of the DOL both spoke in favor of SB 5027.
      Then as I recall… Capt. Jason Berry of the WSP joined Wilson and Ball to testify.
      Senators Haugen, King and Delvin asked questions about past WSP inspected Off-Road motorcycles.
      Toni Wilson said yes inspections were done by the WSP from 1998 thru 2000, but the DOL has no info on what motorcycles received the inspections.
      Senator King asked if motorcycles equipped to meet Street Legal requirements could be inspected and converted in the future like “kit cars” are done today.
      Capt. Berry said something to the effect… yes… but WSP had no money/staff to do the inspections… and there is also a liability issue the State does not want.
      So the Senators suggested a private certified person (motorcycle shop) could do the inspections.
      They also asked if the motorcycle owners that add kits to the motorcycle… could be considered the motorcycle manufacture… like “kit cars” in Washington are done today.
      Senator King then asked Glenn Ball of the DOL if the motorcycle title could reflect a “Use Code” that would allow the next owner to understand the motorcycle was equipped with a kit to make it street legal (“Use Class” info on the title… similar to kit cars).
      Glenn Ball stated the DOL could do something with a motorcycle “Use Class” to assure the next owner would be informed.

      Donnie Landsman and John Eaton did a great job explaining how today in Washington State an Off-Road Motorcycle owner is being treated differently by the DOL and WSP… then say a kit car builder or chopper builder or salvage re-builder in Washington.
      Donnie and John both agreed the motorcycle owners could be the manufacture (liable), install the kit/equipment, then the owner would pay to have the motorcycle inspected.
      Both Donnie and John suggested privatize inspections (like the neighboring states Idaho, Montana, Oregon have done).
      I know I have left-out a ton of great facts both Donnie and John brought up.

      At the end… Senator Haugen asked the committee to join Capt. Jason Berry of the WSP, Toni Wilson and Glenn Ball of the DOL to all work out a solution.

      I left a message with Senator Haugen’s spokesman to please let me know the outcome. No word as of 01/21/2011 (evening).

      PS… anyone… if I have anything in error / you viewed it different / I left out important info… please correct / post your view etc.

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        Ignore my post above and watch the broadcast for yourself.
        Thanks to John Schuller for finding the link!
        Reference John’s post below.
        john schuller says:
        January 21, 2011 at 9:14 pm

        Mark Bezinque

  69. Deminimis says:

    I can see where folks think 2-smokes should not be street legal, but quiet, properly lighted 4-strokes? Gimme a break Olympia. What’s the issue? Don’t want people commuting on something that gets great mileage, doesn’t add to the gridlock, and doesn’t pollute the air like a SUV? I have a KTM “dirt bike” that is quieter are more environmentally friendly than my big street legal KTM, not to mention my Corolla or diesel pickup. I’d go further and state its considerably safer too (lighter, stops on a dime- not suggesting its safer than a cage, but safer than my “street legal” bike and a heck of a lot safer than cruiser-type bikes). Perhaps when gas hits $5/gal you folks in Olympia will pull your head out of your….helmet, and come up with a sensible solution (for example, DEQ testing and DMV inspection of required lighting equipment/horn/speedo). The draconian madness that permeates in Sacramento, Salem and Olympia is pathetic.

  70. John Schuller says:

    What’s the problem with 2 strokes friend?
    Kawasaki triple 2 strokes are licenced for use on the street in all states. Outboard 2 strokes are used on our lakes. If they are OK in our ‘pristine woods’, why shouldn’t you use them on the asphalt for limited trail connecting?

    Please don’t be so quick to throw your fellow motorcyclists under the bus because a particular issue doesn’t affect your machine! Next it will be 4 strokes that don’t have catalytic converters. Maybe yours???

    • Deminimis says:

      Actually, I have a 2-smoke too. Just being realistic.

      • John Schuller says:

        Then you see the huge advantages of the 2 strokes off road;)
        Mines got a plate, all the street legal bull, and its titled as a “CYC” by this state.
        Retroactively applying law is wrong…whether its 1972 H2’s or Evinrude outboards!
        Grandfather the things, like so many states have (even Calf.), and problem solved.

      • Deminimis says:

        I agree they are great off road and I didn’t mention anything about grandfathering. We all know the move is away from 2-strokes, whether its outboards, bikes, etc., due to EPA concerns. Sure, there are exceptions, but that’s the way things have been moving for a while now. Perhaps we have a chance of getting Olympia to allow future licensing of off road bikes, but I think getting them to reverse their current position when it comes to chain saws running up and down the streets at night is extremely unlikely. A zinger is like music to my ears and the aroma of 110 and oil smells better than any French entree I can think of, but I seriously doubt any legislator and the vast majority of their constituents feel the same way. Again, just being realistic.

    • Jeremiah Fultz says:

      Well put John. The goal should be that any motorcycle that meets the requirements (horn, headlight, working tail light/brake light). I would like to know why our bikes are considered “unsafe”. It is my belief that me riding my KTM450, CRF250, or KLX250 on the road is safer then a 25 year old riding a CBR1000, or 16 year old driving beat up old chevy lifted with hockey pucks on bald Super swamper that rub the fenders, or the kid filled minivan driven by a Starbucks venti triple shot mocha latte jacked soccer mom yelling at the kids and trying to kill me on my bike. Which I am able to avoid because I stay as far away from minivans as I can. Sorry, just some venting about how far out of touch some of our law makers are. I hope they don’t read this because they will want to raise the legal driving age to 21, outlaw any street bike over 125cc, pass a law agaist modifying your truck in anyway and make driving with a caffine level above .08 a DUI offense and completely ignore the argument for making dirt bikes street legal.
      SO I hope we can all work towards changing the laws so we can comute to work on our SAFE motorcycles, travel the fire roads without fear of a ticket, and be able to enjoy the two-a-year dualsport rides that I have miss out on because I cannot plate my motorcycle that meets WA state requirements (horn,headlight,working brake/tailight)for a street legal bike.
      Thank you
      Jeremiah Fultz

      • John Schuller says:

        Agreed Jeremiah!

        Deminimis…I don’t care a twit what the “move is”. I don’t happen to think the EPA is even constitutional, and I sure as hell can read: Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law; Article I, section 9, clause 3.
        Hate to be argumentative, but its time to change what’s ‘realistic’ in some bureaucratic minds. You don’t think all the states that ‘grandfathered’ already licensed/inspected bikes did so because they felt generous that day do you? They did it be cause its ILLEGAL to make law retroactive!
        WA never had FMVSS on the books until 2008.

        Love ya Brother

  71. john schuller says:

    Thanks again for staying on top of this Mark!

    The entire proceeding can be viewed here:

    http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2011010154&TYPE=V&CFID=2259784&CFTOKEN=47360228&bhcp=1

    Very interesting!

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      John,

      That is a great find !
      FYI to all:
      If you want to get to the start of SB 5027… jump to 00:26:40.

      Thanks again,
      Mark Bezinque

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        Watching the broadcast again…
        I have to wonder why there ever was an issue in the first place.

        Washington State Patrol does not inspect a car for equipment/safety when it is a re-build, a kit-car, etc.

        WSP simply verifies a VIN #.
        There is No Liability for the State of Washington.

        The owner/modifier is liable as the manufacture.

        If the vehicle is stopped by a LEO and found not to be per State/Federal requirements (loud noise, lack of fenders, lights, etc), it is ticketed.
        The owner is responsible for equipment, condition, etc.

        Why does the State want to treat motorcycles different from cars?

        “Ultimate Public Safety” was the first song and dance we got from Alan Haight DOL.

        Now the WSP (per this broadcast) seems to just want to assure the State is not liable for lack of equipment or failure.

        If we just have the DOL apply the current kit-car “Use Class” on our kitted motorcycles… we are liable.
        Also the next buyer can see on the title it is a kit-motorcycle.

        If we do not meet the street requirements and are stopped by a LEO… the owner gets a ticket for equipment.

        Washington State would recieve lots of funds from folks not smart enough to meet the requirements.

        I have asked for safety facts and data about converted motorcycle equipment failures.
        I have to believe since I did not get those safety facts… there are no safety issues.

        This just appears to be an agenda against motorcycle owners.

        Thank you,
        Mark Bezinque

    • Jeremiah Fultz says:

      Thank you for that link John, it is great to see that the Transportation Committee is made up of open minded individuals. The precedent for a revised law was outlined, and should be as follows: the builder or persons modifying the motorcycle assumes responsibility for compliance of state law for requirements of safety equipment(headlight, horn, working brake/tail light, and rear view mirrors). Title for said motorcycle will then be issued with the following assignment ” Off road motorcycle converted for street/off road use. If motorcycle is sold new owner assumes responsibility for street compliance.” This would transfer all liability from the state, DOL, and WSP which was clearly stated in the hearing as the only sticking point.
      I wish I could have been there for the hearings, and could have nailed down the DOL on these points.
      I believe that the DOL has been paying attention to this blog and we will get the law and policies change. Thank you to everybody on here for keeping this thread going and making our voices heard.
      Thank you
      Jeremiah Fultz
      P.S. is great to see that ABATE of Washington supports our cause. They are a great organization that can get things done. Thank you AoW.

  72. Mark Bezinque says:

    FYI
    Reference link below for the latest info on SB 5027.

    This was recorded on Jan. 24th.
    Per this broadcast… Senator King will be sponsoring a new bill to allow an off-road motorcycle owner to add a kit to his/her motorcycle… then be have it inspected for street use.

    Jump to 1:17:00 on the left hand clock to get to SB 5027. If anyone knows the SB# for the new legislation, please post it!

    http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2011010203&TYPE=V&CFID=2404495&CFTOKEN=63804847&bhcp=1

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      I added the wrong link above. (Old Age is my only excuse)
      Good catch John!

      Please jump to 1:17:00 for SB 5027.

      http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2011011166&TYPE=V&CFID=2429864&CFTOKEN=98662332&bhcp=1

      Event Date:
      January 24, 2011 3:30pm
      Event Description:
      Public: SB 5205, SB 5218, SB 5252, SB 5255, SB 5260 Executive: SB 5026, SB 5027, SB 5063, SB 5141, SB 5185

      Sorry,
      Mark Bezinque

      • Jeremiah Fultz says:

        Mark,
        I just recieved an email from Sen. King. He and his staff are drafting the Bill as we speak and will be emailing me a draft. I offered to help them out with anything i can, and hope they will heed some of my suggestions. I want to make sure that this will cover all bikes, and can not be recended once passed. I passed on my concerns about inspection shops being held liable for future non compliancies and reiterated that the current owner be responsible for maintaining compliancy and no other party (I.e. DOL, State Patrol, inspection shop, or previous owner) shall be held liable for passing a safety inspection durring a traffic stop.

        I will keep you guys informed when I know more.
        Thank you
        Jeremiah Fultz

  73. Shayne Downing says:

    Well I guess our January 4th meeting with Senator King and Representative Ross was a step in the right direction. Both Sen. Ross and Rep. King should be commended for standing up for what makes sense. Unfortunately that is a trait that seems to be lost in Olympia. Both of these guys are solid and true proponents of the ORV community. They recognize the ridiculous nature of what WA State is trying to do here and have the guts to support common sense. I can’t stress enough how important it is to contact our Reps. I can guarantee they hear from the other side alot more than they hear from us (we’re too busy riding). It is incredibly easy to meet with these folks and they will listen if you present an intelligent case.

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Jeremiah & Shayne,

      Great news on the Senator King Email.
      Thank you both for finding the courage to stand up to the DOL and contacting your legislators.

      As you have the opportunity to give input to the Bill… please assure the DOL & ATG in the future cannot pull the same shady lines they have recently:

      #1 DOL Statement to me 12-14-2010: “We DO NOT believe that the vehicle inspection that the motorcycle in question underwent made it LEGAL for street use.” (Classic Government BS… And I am still waiting for Tony Sermonti to STEP UP… and post his bosses and the ATG’s 12-14-2010 words to me on the DOL Blog)

      #2 Toni Wilson told the transportation committee that yes the WSP did inspect street legal converted motorcycles from 1998-2000, but we the DOL have no info on which motorcycles passed these inspections.

      Toni Wilson did not state the reason for NO DOCUMENTS was: the DOL has a policy to destroy any documents older then 6-years old. (Handy)

      So with that… please assure the new Bill MAKES the DOL state/ID the Inspection/Conversion/Kit on the TITLE!

      We do not want our kids to deal with a future WASTE OF TAX DOLLARS like this, because the DOL decides to lose documents and ignore a past RULE/LAW/POLICY/PROGRAM!

      Thanks
      Mark Bezinque

      • Jeremiah Fultz says:

        Mark,
        My goal for this Bill:

        1. Any off road motorcycle can be street licensed if meeting the following state requirements: working head,tail, and brake light, horn, rear view mirrors.

        2. Converted motorcycle will be inspected to confirm installation and working operation of state required equipment.

        3. Place of inspection will confirm installation and working operation of required equipment and certificate will then be issued by inspector. (Inspector is only liable for making sure equipment is present and working at time of inspection. Liability for keeping motorcycle compliant will be with the owner.)

        4. Upon completion of inspection, owner must then present certificate of compliance to DOL and title and plates will be issued at that time.

        5. Due to conversion title usage will at this time be change and shall state the following “Off road motorcycle converted for street use. Owner is responsible for maintaining compliance.”

        6. Once a motorcycle has been converted, inspected, and licensed for road use, no future legislation shall override or void this classification.

        These are just a rough draft of points I would like to see in this Bill. If you or anybody else on this thread would like to add that would be appreciated.
        Some other points or requirements that I think would help our cause. We all know that riding areas are being closed down due to sound and with more motocross bike being used on our trails we should make sound testing at the time of inspection a requirement, along with requiring a spark arrestor.
        I am a big proponent of sound control(both my race bikes runs with a quiet muffler and spark arrestor and are under 94 DBs. Requiring these at the time of inspection would either eliminate or force the irresponsible off roaders to meet Forestry requirements and save our community future headaches.
        Thanks
        Jeremiah Fultz

      • john schuller says:

        Jeremiah,
        I have a concern I don’t wish to discuss on this open forum. I really don’t think the DOL has been looking out for our interests in this matter.
        Please contact me at tjschul@yahoo.com

  74. Mark Watson says:

    As to liability concerns, by statute the State is already immune from liability for licensing vehicles as it relates to nonroadworthiness: “The director, the state of Washington, and its political subdivisions shall be immune from civil liability arising from the issuance of a vehicle license to a nonroadworthy vehicle.” RCW 46.16A.510.

    • john schuller says:

      Now isn’t that special? First thing the folks at DOL do is point out (Sept 15 above)that they are not responsible for licensing non roadworthy vehicles, and then at the hearing (Jan 20), the state patrol and DOL act like liability is their biggest and only concern in this matter.

      This whole thing… the DOL putting almost a thousand currently licenced bikes and their owners through this bureaucratic pretzel for the last 6 months is just plain BULL!

      Still doing my part- working hard to defund these agencies in every little way, every day I live here.
      If they have the money to pursue crap like this, they have way too much.

  75. Mark Bezinque says:

    Just an FYI on SB 5300.

    Set the left hand clock to 19:24 to get to the start of the bill’s testimony.

    Set the left clock to 39:38 to get to WSP Captain Jason Berry’s common sense testimony about a properly equipped off-road motorcycle is just as SAFE as a street bike.

    http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2011021300&TYPE=V&CFID=3242406&CFTOKEN=75050615&bhcp=1

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Should have been SB 5800(not 5300)above.

  76. Mark Bezinque says:

    Latest Info:

    SSB 5800
    Off-road motorcycles
    Senate vote on 3rd Reading & Final Passage
    3/4/2011

    Yeas: 46 Nays: 2 Absent: 1 Excused: 0

    Voting Yea: Senators Baumgartner, Baxter, Becker, Benton, Brown, Carrell, Chase, Conway, Delvin, Eide, Ericksen, Fain, Fraser, Hargrove, Harper, Hatfield, Haugen, Hewitt, Hill, Hobbs, Honeyford, Kastama, Keiser, Kilmer, King, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Litzow, McAuliffe, Morton, Murray, Nelson, Parlette, Pflug, Pridemore, Ranker, Regala, Roach, Rockefeller, Schoesler, Sheldon, Shin, Swecker, Tom, White, and Zarelli

    Voting Nay: Senators Holmquist Newbry and Stevens

    Absent: Senator Prentice
    Excused:

  77. John S says:

    Senators Holmquist Newbry and Stevens voting no…..

    Wonder why two Senators from ATV ‘friendly’ areas vote no?????? Needs to be looked into by constituents of theirs.

  78. Ken S. says:

    OK – forgive me if I missed the answer up above – I just discovered this Q&A page, and I’m not sure where I fall….

    I recently bought a 1964 Honda Trail 55, a small trail ‘moped’. It looks to me like the FMVSS rules were put in place in 1967, so my bike pre-dates this law.

    The bike has a head-light/tail-light, blinkers, rear-view mirrors, horn … everything I can think that it would need to be street legal.

    I want to ride this primarily around W. Seattle (on roads) – so I want a license plate for street riding. But – the bike is currently registered as an Off-Road vehicle, so I apparently need to go to the State Patrol to have them OK changing the designation.

    Back in October 2010, Mark B. asked:

    DOL please respond with State law
    (RCW XX.XX.XXX) How old motorcycles
    built long before there was FMVSS requirements
    adresses grandfathering for licensing.

    Was this answered?

    The bike is currently barely/not running – and I need to register it ASAP (w/in 15 days of purchase), and I’d rather NOT register it once as an ORV and later for street use (needing to pay registration fees twice). And from this discussion, I wonder if ‘changing’ the designation from ORV to street-legal is even possible. And what does the State Patrol need to make this decision – see the bike? Just know the model name/Title info?

    Any advice is welcome – Thanks!

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Ken S.

      It has been over 15 days.
      May I ask if and how the DOL answered your questions about a motorcycle manufactured prior to FMVSS?

  79. Mark Bezinque says:

    Ken S.

    My question was never answered by the DOL…
    Like MANY other questions asked on this DOL BLOG.

    The DOL spokesmen Tony Sermonti and Brad Benfield have elected to not respond to many questions here or return my RECENT phone calls.

    I suggest you call the DOL and get with Glenn Ball (highest offical I have every got to visit with)

    I would love to hear the DOL response on your question.

    If you get a response… please post the DOL comments here on the DOL BLOG, since they (DOL) seem to be unable to respond themselves.

    Beware of the the DOL.
    The DOL TOOK my license money for a KTM that had been licensed for 10 plus years in WA on July 23rd of 2010 and inspected for street legal use in 2000.
    The DOL never return a penny of my monies after they
    began revoking my plates 35 days later due to “Ultimate Public Saftey” (like my KTM was a Weapon of Mass Destruction)
    Can you tell I am STILL a bit cranky?

    GOOD LUCK getting your bike street legal.
    Mark Bezinque

  80. Mark Bezinque says:

    Just an FYI on where SB 5800 is:

    IN THE HOUSE
    Mar 7 First reading, referred to Transportation.

    Mar 22 Public hearing in the House Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM.

    Mar 24 Executive action taken in the House Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM.
    TR – Executive action taken by committee.
    TR – Majority; do pass. (Majority Report)

    Majority Report: Do pass
    Signed by Representatives Clibborn, Chair; Billig, Vice Chair; Liias, Vice Chair; Armstrong, Ranking Minority Member; Hargrove, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Angel, Asay, Eddy, Finn, Fitzgibbon, Jinkins, Johnson, Klippert, Ladenburg, McCune, Morris, Moscoso, Reykdal, Rivers, Rolfes, Ryu, Shea, Takko, Upthegrove, and Zeiger.

    Mar 25 Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.

  81. Mark Bezinque says:

    SSB 5800
    Off-road motorcycles
    House vote on Final Passage
    4/5/2011

    Yeas: 96 Nays: 0 Absent: 0 Excused: 1

    Voting Yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Angel, Appleton, Armstrong, Asay, Bailey, Billig, Blake, Buys, Carlyle, Chandler, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Crouse, Dahlquist, Dammeier, Darneille, DeBolt, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eddy, Fagan, Finn, Fitzgibbon, Frockt, Goodman, Green, Haigh, Haler, Hargrove, Harris, Hasegawa, Hinkle, Hope, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Hurst, Jinkins, Johnson, Kagi, Kelley, Kenney, Kirby, Klippert, Kretz, Kristiansen, Ladenburg, Liias, Lytton, Maxwell, McCoy, McCune, Miloscia, Moeller, Morris, Moscoso, Orcutt, Ormsby, Orwall, Overstreet, Parker, Pearson, Pedersen, Pettigrew, Probst, Reykdal, Rivers, Roberts, Rodne, Rolfes, Ross, Ryu, Santos, Seaquist, Sells, Shea, Schmick, Short, Smith, Springer, Stanford, Sullivan, Takko, Taylor, Tharinger, Upthegrove, Van De Wege, Walsh, Warnick, Wilcox, Zeiger, and Mr. Speaker
    Voting Nay:
    Absent:
    Excused: Representative Nealey

  82. Mark Bezinque says:

    SB 5800
    IN THE SENATE
    Apr 6, 2011
    President signed.

    Bill 5800 now needs to go to step 9 below.

    How a Bill Becomes a Law
    For more information, see Legislative Process Overview, Reed’s Parliamentary Rules, and Students’ Page.

    1. A bill may be introduced in either the Senate or House of Representatives by a member.

    2. It is referred to a committee for a hearing. The committee studies the bill and may hold public hearings on it. It can then pass, reject, or take no action on the bill.

    3. The committee report on the passed bill is read in open session of the House or Senate, and the bill is then referred to the Rules Committee.

    4. The Rules Committee can either place the bill on the second reading calendar for debate before the entire body, or take no action.

    5. At the second reading, a bill is subject to debate and amendment before being placed on the third reading calendar for final passage.

    6. After passing one house, the bill goes through the same procedure in the other house.

    7. If amendments are made in the other house, the first house must approve the changes.

    8. When the bill is accepted in both houses, it is signed by the respective leaders and sent to the governor.

    9. The governor signs the bill into law or may veto all or part of it. If the governor fails to act on the bill, it may become law without a signature.

    Just an FYI:
    Our current Washington Governor Christine Gregoire… Then (1998) Washington Attorney General reviewed and approved to allow conversion of properly modified off-road motorcycles to street-legal or dual-sport status.

    Brief History of 1998 Inspection Policy —

    After several years of working with many users groups, the written policy was communicated by the Washington State Patrol to NMA and other off-road groups in mid-1998.

    The new vehicle inspection policy, which was reviewed and approved by Attorney General Christine Gregoire’s office, was designed to allow conversion of properly modified off-road motorcycles to street-legal or dual-sport status.

    A letter from the Washington State Patrol (WSP) at that time, signed by Chief Annette M. Sandberg and Captain G. Marshall Pugh, states that the policy became effective, as transmitted to all Vehicle Identification Inspectors, July 1, 1998.

  83. Latest News on SB 5800…Bill has passed thanks in part to the efforts of the Yakima Valley Dust Dodgers (club responsible for meeting with Senator King). Mark Watson (Dust Dodgers President) was contacted by the Governors Office and invited to attend the signing of the Bill. A date has not been set yet for the signing. It may be a good time to purchase stock in Baja Designs becasue I imagine once this Bill takes effect, their street legal conversion kits will be flying off the shelves. This has been a great example of the power we have when we take the time to put down the tv remote, get off our couches and actually participate in government. I can’t say enough good things about Senator Curtis King who spearheaded this Bill after meeting with the Yakima Dust Dodgers and accomplished the reinstatement of a right which never should have been taken away. It was refreshing to meet and work with a government official that still operates in the world of reality and common sense. Thank you also to everyone who participated in this post.
    Shayne Downing
    VP Membership, Yakima Valley Dust Dodgers

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Shayne,
      This is awesome news!

      I agree about getting off the couch and finding common sense people in government to help when overreaching government needs to get reeled in.

      Hope to see all of us back on the street in 2012 riding on SAFE street legal off-road motorcycles!

      Thanks to all for helping/making this a WA State LAW again!

  84. Mark Bezinque says:

    SSB 5800
    Apr 12 Delivered to Governor.
    Apr 18 Governor signed.
    Chapter 121, 2011 Laws.
    Effective date 1/1/2012.

    The Governor has signed SSB 5800 (the LAW effective 1/1/2012) to allow an off-road motorcycle to be converted into a street legal motorcycle AGAIN. (ref 1998-2000 inspections)

    So now what does the DOL do with those of us who had our street legal status STOLEN by the DOL on 10/1/2010… when our motorcycles had PAID FOR street LEGAL contracts/inspections from the Washington State Patrol from 1998-2000?

    Does the DOL continue to break the LAW, and continue to PRETEND the the 1998-2000 inspections never happened?
    Please Reference Washington State Constitution SECTION 23 BILL OF ATTAINDER, EX POST FACTO LAW, ETC. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTS shall ever be passed.

    During the 2010 DOL KTM Witch-Hunt, the DOL never investigated/cared if any of the Witch-Hunted KTMs had been LEGALLY inspected and allowed street legal status. I was simply told the 1998-2000 PROGRAM/LAW was discontinued and my KTM’s inspection was no longer valid.

    Note: I have sent a personal letter to DOL Director Liz Luce requesting my PAID FOR street status to be returned… only to get a letter from staff (not Ms. Luce) basically saying No… we gave you an ORV tab… have a nice day.

    The DOL needs to be investigated for this OVERREACHING GUISE of SAFETY and TAX DOLLAR WASTE!

    • john Schuller says:

      My thoughts exactly Mark!

      WSP starts all this under the guise of “safety”, with the goal of getting the orange bikes off the road. (They were posing a huge threat to their owners you know, unlike the homemade trikes with beer keg gas tanks they inspect and approve for highway travel).
      Now instead of banning just the KTM’s from the occasional trail linking, using secondary and FS roads, they will get to watch ANY properly equipped MX’er cruise the highway.

      WHAT A HUGE WASTE OF LIMITED TAXPAYER RESOURCES!!!

      Continue working to cut their budgets to the bone, that’s the only way to stop this kind of nonsense!

      Unlike you, I got a plate pulled with ~9 month left on it, got no free ATV tag…..just got to pay $47 the other day for an ATV sticker good through 5/12. Yes, mine WAS a “CYC” not an “ORV”.

      Thankful the law is changed, but still very pissed!

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        John,

        I am also glad the LAW has been RETURNED. I am still PO’d and will be on the DOL until my KTM is returned to street legal status.

        Anyone effected by this overreach should call for an investigation of Taxpayer Fraud.
        This DOL office seems to have several fraud issues the last few years.

        ISSUE Question to the WA DOL (if you have time to read the BLOG)…
        Why was some of the KTM owners given ATV/ORV tabs when you STOLE our Street Legal Plates 10-2-2010, and some of the KTM owners NOT given ATV/ORV tabs?

        Just an FYI DOL statement for reference:
        The Department of Licensing (DOL) Blog was created to provide Washington citizens with news and other useful information about the agency and ISSUES WE are involved in.

  85. Mark Bezinque says:

    Reference DOL statements on this Blog:

    By law, DOL is not liable for inappropriately registering a vehicle (RCW 46.16.012). We have taken steps to ensure that in the future KTM will provide the department with the correct documents to determine the roadworthiness of a vehicle.

    NOTE the DOL’s attempt to make a law: Requiring motorcycle manufacturers to indicate whether a motorcycle is for off-road use only… FAILED!

    Ref. SB 5027
    2011 REGULAR SESSION
    Dec 28 Prefiled for introduction.
    Jan 10 First reading, referred to Transportation. (View Original Bill)

    Jan 20 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. (Committee Materials)

    Jan 24 Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. (Committee Materials)

    Jan 25 TRAN – Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass. (View 1st Substitute) (Majority Report)

    Jan 26 Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.
    Mar 16 Senate Rules “X” file.

    The House and Senate Rules Committees may place bills that will go no further in the process on the “X-file.”

  86. Mark Bezinque says:

    Since I am requesting the Media to investigate the DOL (Our ATG and Governor do not seem to want to get involved YET with this waste of Washington Tax dollars)

    I posted this info/comment (below) on the DOL blog page with the two KTM pictures and their Silly/False DOL statements… (in-case the Media does not get to this Main Blog page 1st)

    It amazed me the DOL was so bold to state there was a WAC already in place to require “Not Road Worthy” on the MSO/MCO before they even attemped SB 5027!

    DOL: “Motorcycles (all vehicles, for that matter) are determined to be road-worthy depending on a long list of items – everything from the construction of the gas tank”… (Note: Plastic tanks ARE EXCEPTABLE for manufactures), “… to the brakes, mirrors and emission standards. Except for the emission standards, these criteria are a part of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which Washington state has adopted.”

    My statement: The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was not adopted in WA until 2008.
    The DOL still attempts to shove that sneaky 2008 adoption down our throats on Motorcycles that met WA Law before 2008.
    ALSO:
    The FMVSS is a guide-line for a manufacture to sell in the USA, and it is also a guide-line for a STATE to not EXCEED when the State writes it’s own requirements for Street Legal Use. (you can read the RCWs posted on the main Blog)

    DOL: “If a vehicle is not road-worthy, Washington Administrative Code requires that it must be noted on the vehicle’s Certificate of Origin.”

    My Statement: Then and today this is a full-blown DOL LIE.
    There is NOT a WAC that requires… “that it must be noted on the vehicle’s Certificate of Origin.”
    The DOL statement was LIE then… and continues to be a LIE today. (ref Failure of SB 5027)

    DOL: “Some manufacturers are out of compliance with this requirement, and DOL continues work to ensure manufacturers are compliant. You can see two examples below.”

    My Statement: The DOL attempted to create SB 5027 to require manufacturers to meet a WA Law during regular session 2011.
    This WA (only… not Fed or any other State) Law attempt FAILED.

    If you are investigating this subject… please turn your attention to main Blog (with over 175 posts) by searching for OFF ROAD in the search box (above right)

    Thanks,
    Mark Bezinque

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Let me re-state my comment above:
      There was a NON-EFFECTIVE WAC that required SB 5027 to PASS (which it did not) in order for the State of WA to require Manufactures to follow the WAC.
      Appears to me WAC 308-56A-110… (f) will need to be revised since SB 5027 FAILED.

      Washington Administrative Code (WAC)—Also known as “rules” or “administrative rules.”
      AGENCY RULES are designed to HELP the public comply with STATE LAWS, processes, and other requirements.

      Law — A statement by the legislature or the courts that MUST be obeyed and followed by citizens.
      The laws of Washington State are contained in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).

      What is the difference between a WAC and an RCW?

      RCW are statutes, passed by the state legislature or by vote of the people. (legislative branch)

      WAC are administrative regulations, or rules, adopted by state agencies. (executive branch)

      RCWs can affect the entire population, or just a group.

      WACs govern the STATE AGENCY.

      It appears to me a WAC has no teeth without an RCW to back it UP!

      Reference WAC 308-56A-110… (f) An indication that the vehicle was not manufactured for road use, if applicable; and…

      Is WAC 308-56A-110 (f) an example of the DOL writing rules that DID NOT have backup?

      Was SB 5027 an ATTEMPT to create an RCW to backup WAC 308-56A-110 (f)?

      Was the FAILURE of SB 5027 an example of WA State attempting to exceed Federal Law?

      DOL Statement: “In our state, a manufacturer must certify on the MSO that a motorcycle was not designed and manufactured for street use.”

      Also: DOL Answer: Federal law does not regulate off-road vehicles, therefore there is no requirement for the manufacturer to indicate off-road only on the MSO. However, we have been working with KTM for some time to get the proper notation on the MSO’s.

      Blog: How can this be based on “Federal Law” when your replay to Mr. Bezinque clearly states that “Federal Law does not regulate off-road vehicles”, then what gives you the right to.
      (never answered by the WA DOL)

      Another DOL Statement: Mr. Bezinque,
      We always do our best meet our stated goals for making new administrative rules to guide our operations. The actions DOL is taking to correctly classify off-road motorcyles is not based on changes made through DOL’s rule making processes. These actions are based on existing state and federal rules and laws, as noted above.

      Thank you,
      Mark Bezinque

  87. GEOFF says:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5800

    The Legislature has passed and the Governor signed SB5800. This bill would allow properly
    equipped and documented off-road motorcycles to be legally converted to street use. ITS NOT Effective ON TILL 1/1/2012. ON Apr 18 Governor signed.

  88. GEOFF says:

    no video of SB 5800i can find and did not see upper post and any body know if are going to have the orv tag 2 with the plate or just the plate?

    • john Schuller says:

      You’re going to need the new $30’discovery’ pass for any dual purposed motorcycle to access DNR managed public lands . There is an exemption for orv tagged (only) bikes on DNR land, but not for plated vehicles of any kind. Clear as mud huh?

      Work to defund these clowns in oly any way you can….its the only way to get them out of your hair!

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        John and GEOFF,

        Any idea how this RCW #(6) and others will play in this NEW Muddy-Mess?

        RCW 46.09.050
        Vehicles exempted from ORV use permits and tags. (Effective until July 1, 2011. Recodified as RCW 46.09.420.)

        ORV use permits and ORV tags shall be required under the provisions of this chapter EXCEPT for the following:

        (1) Off-road vehicles owned and operated by the United States, another state, or a political subdivision thereof.

        (2) Off-road vehicles owned and operated by this state, or by any municipality or political subdivision thereof.

        (3) Off-road vehicles operated on agricultural lands owned or leased by the ORV owner or operator.

        (4) Off-road vehicles owned by a resident of another state that have a valid ORV permit or vehicle license issued in accordance with the laws of the other state. This exemption shall apply only to the extent that a similar exemption or privilege is granted under the laws of that state.

        (5) Off-road vehicles while being used for search and rescue purposes under the authority or direction of an appropriate search and rescue or law enforcement agency.

        (6) Vehicles which are licensed pursuant to chapter 46.16 RCW or in the case of nonresidents, vehicles which are VALIDLY LICENSED for operation over public highways in the jurisdiction of the owner’s residence.

        [2004 c 105 § 9; 1986 c 206 § 3; 1977 ex.s. c 220 § 4; 1972 ex.s. c 153 § 6; 1971 ex.s. c 47 § 10.]

        Wow… we need some more Government Smart Guys writing regulations for motorcycle riders! (sarcism)

        I am baffled with all their BULL, but not DAZZLED!

  89. john Schuller says:

    Hi Mark,
    I think the vehicle (motorcycle) WOULD be exempt per (6) above. But here’s the decision you get to make:
    No ORV tag= you must have the ‘Discovery pass”
    ORV tag= exempt from Discovery pass”

    ORV is cheaper! Less bucks to bureaucrats.

  90. Mark Bezinque says:

    John,

    Let’s see if I got this right.
    Say on the weekend I decide to go to Walker Valley ORV and trailer my KTM there… basically not ride my street legal plated KTM with also an ORV Tag to Walker Valley ORV.

    How will the LEOs deal with my WA Plated Truck and WA Plated Trailer if the ORV Tag is ONLY on the street-legal KTM?

    Will I also have to have a Discover Pass for the PARKED Truck that is only a tow-vehicle (not used on the trails)?
    I can only operate one vehicle at a time!!!

    It said The Discovery Pass is not transferable from Vehicle to Vehicle.

    What happens if I buy a Discovery Pass for the Truck and have it parked in Camping/Parking, and the KTM is only Street Legal… Does it get busted with no ORV Tag or Discovery Pass? (guessing it will get ticketed)

    If all vehicles in Camp/Parking including tow-vehicle require an ORV and/or Discovery Pass… I am not sure how fair that is to say a family with of several street legal motorcycles with ALSO ORV Tags.

    Next each of us will have to paste a “Your using an WA Out-house Pass” on our forehead if we want to use a Honey-bucket on DNR land”

    Maybe a “Your looking at the WA Mountains Pass” if your house has a view of DNR land, or you are visiting a friend with a view of DNR land.

    I just have keep Loving the WA government until I retire and TAKE my money to a friendly State…

  91. john Schuller says:

    You got it Buddy, they got you coming and going. Even the mt. bikers who have escaped all fees are not exempt this time. They will need a D pass for their ‘tow vehicles’.
    NOT a very family friendly state any longer.

    Bottom line is I’m going to get my stolen plate back, and ride the KTM any where I like, just like before DOL and the WSP put up this circus tent.

  92. GEOFF says:

    ok so how is the nf land going to work plate or orv/plate

    • Mark Bezinque says:

      Maybe the DOL can answer your question on National Forest Land riding with a Street Legal Motorcycle and also sporting an ORV permit… since they (DOL) control both permit and plate?

      Let us all hold are breath for their (DOL) quick response.

      The State of Washington has all this public land for Public use…
      But each Public Area is a City, County, State , National, Federal, etc. piece of Ground, Park, Reserve, Habit, Forest, NF, DNR land.
      And all this PUBLIC Land has loads of government rule-makers trying to keep YOU the public off/out.

      Or better yet just write you a ticket for failure to abide to a Zillion different rules.

      Tickets are just another way to fund more government red tape.
      tickets = tax dollars = more government = more rule-making = more tickets
      It is the government’s circle of life!

      It appears you will need to cover your vehicle with loads of non-tranferrable permits… and carry loads of State and Federal regulation with you like salt-water fisherman have to do here in WA.

      • Mark Bezinque says:

        Please read this recent story on how the DOL will not re-new your driver’s license if you have issues/tickets nearly 20 years ago (even from other states), but the Rocket-Scientists (DOL) destroy Washington State Patrol Motorcycle conversion/inspection records that are over 6 years old. How corrupt is that???

        http://www.king5.com/news/consumer/Out-of-state-tickets-can-derail-drivers-license-renewal-121670044.html

  93. Aaron Dirks says:

    Ok so now heres a solid questioon, I am about to purchase a bike this month and it is being sold as street legal. I was wondering if there is a list of motorcycles that are not street legal and a list of ones that are? Since this new law is extremely vague and hard to understand. I would aslo like it to be an acutally list of legal and non-legal bikes, not a reference to a section of code if at all possible.

  94. john Schuller says:

    Aaron,
    Wish you luck with that list.
    There is a character, 8th I think, that designates a motorcycles ‘use’ as imported. If this character does not indicate ‘street use motorcycle”, flags should go up.
    Research time my friend. This is a good place to start:

    http://www.motoverse.com/vinDecoding.asp

  95. john Schuller says:

    ….That was in reference to the bikes VIN number of course.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,177 other followers

%d bloggers like this: