• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

The CARB / DMV registration blacklist

sckego

sckego

doesn't like crashing
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Location
San Jose
Moto(s)
are fun
Name
Kegan
BARF perks
AMA #3283468
Posting a new thread so as not to hijack the original...

bobl said:
Be advised that if it's not CARB certified, or doesn't have at least 7500 miles on it, you cannot license it in California. An attempt to do so will put it on a black list so that it won't ever be able to be registered in the state.
Click to expand...

I've seen this tidbit about blacklisted out-of-state bikes mentioned before, but never with any first hand experience. I'm wondering if it's a boogeyman story, or if it actually exists. So...

Does anyone here have any actual, first hand experience with buying an out-of-state, 49-state bike, with more than 7500 miles on it, and getting rejected at the DMV because someone tried to import it earlier when it had less than 7500 and got it "blacklisted"?
 
Curious to know the real deal. Seems like :bs to me. The state of California likes money, right? Why would the DMV permanently blacklist a bike if it eventually satisfies the requirements?

Along similar line, importers of grey market bikes state it is not possible to bring in grey market bikes and/or two strokes yet I've read of others saying it's not problem and got their two stroke import registered without incident even after a CHP inspection. What gives?
 
Last edited:
There are ways around the system but if you purchase a 49 State bike and try and bring it in with under 7500 miles you will have the VIN blacklisted. Happened to my friend with an FJ09 - ended up selling it on to a friend in Washington and purchasing another.

As to the grey market stuff, there are fixers that know the system and can exploit edge cases in how the documentation is written but those plates are vulnerable to being revoked after being issued. For example, the early model SXVs that weren’t properly certified and got their plates pulled. Some people have gotten them re-plates and then had dmv pull the plates at a later date.

Basically, this comes down to - if you have to ask the question and aren’t reading the cvcs and the previous threads and know which specific case you’re meeting, don’t try it, cause you’ll likely end up with an unregisterable bike.
 
Z3n said:
There are ways around the system but if you purchase a 49 State bike and try and bring it in with under 7500 miles you will have the VIN blacklisted. Happened to my friend with an FJ09 - ended up selling it on to a friend in Washington and purchasing another.
Click to expand...

Your friend bought a bike with over 7500 miles and they wouldn't let him register it because it had been blacklisted?
 
I got that information from Reg Pridmore. He bought an out of state VFR, took it to DNV, got it registered, and then they pulled the plate and registration because it didn't have the required 7500 miles on it. He told me that it was no longer able to be registered in California. I don't know the particulars.
 
bobl said:
I got that information from Reg Pridmore. He bought an out of state VFR, took it to DNV, got it registered, and then they pulled the plate and registration because it didn't have the required 7500 miles on it.
Click to expand...

Yep, this part is well known and there are lots of stories supporting it. It's not the DMVs fault that you didn't check the regulations before buying and attempting to register a new bike that doesn't meet CA requirements.

bobl said:
He told me that it was no longer able to be registered in California.
Click to expand...

This is the part that I don't buy. So let's say the bike eventually accumulates the 7500 miles on it's out of state reg and gets resold. Buyer knows the laws, sees that it's a 49 state bike, and verifies that it has over 7500 miles, per DMV requirements. He's going to get denied by the DMV because of some event on the bikes history that he had no idea about, because of some "blacklist"? I'm not believing it unless someone chimes in with an actual firsthand experience of it happening.
 
For the importation I think they bike has to be a certain number of years old to be imported (25, 30, .... not sure) in California at least for cars it does due to the emissions stuff.
 
I don't have firsthand experience, but do remember finding the law. It took me at least 30 minutes because it's not in the vehicle code. It's a code referenced in the vehicle code that leads you down a rabbit hole.
 
sckego said:
Your friend bought a bike with over 7500 miles and they wouldn't let him register it because it had been blacklisted?
Click to expand...

He attempted to register it and they blacklisted the VIN and told him it could no longer be registered in CA.

No ones gonna take the risk on buying a bike that the state has told you can’t be registered. If you want to validate, I’d suggest making friends with a DMV agent and figuring out if there is an actual system that logs VINs that can no longer be registered for street use. I know the first year SXVs are on this list.
 
I went through this process recently.

I purchased a bike in CA which the seller had tried to register with under 7,500 miles on it. He told me the bike was blacklisted and would be on the list permamently and the bike would need to leave CA. I took the VIN and went into the DMV who told me the bike was on the list and would not be able to be applied for registration for 36 months past the date of the attempted registration.

About 4 years later I reg'd the bike with no problems and have title currently to the bike (well, I just sold it). I reg'd it after it had 7,500 miles.
 
I used to import 2 stroke bikes from Japan. I sold them Bill of Sale only, although several buyers got them registered. My wife got our 1995 VFR400 registered with no problems at all. I had already registered it as an Off Road Vehicle for 2 years previously. She got a Brake and Light inspection and got the plate. I had to remove the motors from the 2 RVF400s we imported. Brought them in as "motorcycle parts". I also looked into making the VFR400 legal in California with the idea of importing them. All the lights and wheels are already stamped with "DOT'. But to get it through California emissions was going to take $20k per model year.

Mad
 
Z3n said:
Happened to my friend with an FJ09 - ended up selling it on to a friend in Washington and purchasing another.
Click to expand...

Just curious, was this within the last 6 months or so? I was looking at a FJ09 for what seemed like a great price, then found out it was OOS registered, but located here. Red flags went up in my head so I backed off it.
 
Holeshot said:
I went through this process recently.

I purchased a bike in CA which the seller had tried to register with under 7,500 miles on it. He told me the bike was blacklisted and would be on the list permamently and the bike would need to leave CA. I took the VIN and went into the DMV who told me the bike was on the list and would not be able to be applied for registration for 36 months past the date of the attempted registration.

About 4 years later I reg'd the bike with no problems and have title currently to the bike (well, I just sold it). I reg'd it after it had 7,500 miles.
Click to expand...

This rings true. I can see the DMV having a 36 month rule...makes more sense than blacklist for life.

I have heard the origin of this (in addition to upholding CA air quality regulations) is to reduce revenue leakage...CA wants to collect it's taxes on CA certified equipment and prevent people doing arbitrage and buying the bike more cheaply out of state, where the taxes could be lower. Don't know this to be true, but CA/FTB does go to significant efforts on a number of fronts to increase it's tax revenue, so this wouldn't surprise me.
 
RRrider said:
This rings true. I can see the DMV having a 36 month rule...makes more sense than blacklist for life.

I have heard the origin of this (in addition to upholding CA air quality regulations) is to reduce revenue leakage...CA wants to collect it's taxes on CA certified equipment and prevent people doing arbitrage and buying the bike more cheaply out of state, where the taxes could be lower. Don't know this to be true, but CA/FTB does go to significant efforts on a number of fronts to increase it's tax revenue, so this wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

You have to pay CA taxes on any bike that you register/title here, regardless of whether you purchase it in CA or not, so that makes no difference. In fact, you can purchase a bike while living in another state, pay taxes in that state, own it outright with the title in your name, and if you move to CA within a year of that purchase, they will try to charge you CA tax on top of what you've already paid. How's that for some BS? (but that's a rant for another thread)...
 
RRrider said:
This rings true. I can see the DMV having a 36 month rule...makes more sense than blacklist for life.

I have heard the origin of this (in addition to upholding CA air quality regulations) is to reduce revenue leakage...CA wants to collect it's taxes on CA certified equipment and prevent people doing arbitrage and buying the bike more cheaply out of state, where the taxes could be lower. Don't know this to be true, but CA/FTB does go to significant efforts on a number of fronts to increase it's tax revenue, so this wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

CA's weird. Due to boat/ Airplane tax rules, if you purchase a vehicle and hold it out of state for 365 days subsequent to the purchase, tax revenue isn't due. They may ask if you paid tax in another state, but they never seem to ever do that. I don't think this law changed with the tax changes in 2017, but not sure.

The 7,500 mile rule comes from an old CA reg where out of state vehicles (all vehicles) were subject to an additional non-resident vehicle tax. This was ruled unconstitutional, but the definition of "new" (7,500 miles or less) seemed to still stick with motorcycles. They half ass fixed the law for 49 state vehicles.
 
Holeshot said:
CA's weird. Due to boat/ Airplane tax rules, if you purchase a vehicle and hold it out of state for 365 days subsequent to the purchase, tax revenue isn't due. They may ask if you paid tax in another state, but they never seem to ever do that. I don't think this law changed with the tax changes in 2017, but not sure.

The 7,500 mile rule comes from an old CA reg where out of state vehicles (all vehicles) were subject to an additional non-resident vehicle tax. This was ruled unconstitutional, but the definition of "new" (7,500 miles or less) seemed to still stick with motorcycles. They half ass fixed the law for 49 state vehicles.
Click to expand...
The 7500mi rule for buying vehicles applies to cars too, but it's less often that people buy used cars with <7500mi
 
NCGiant said:
Just curious, was this within the last 6 months or so? I was looking at a FJ09 for what seemed like a great price, then found out it was OOS registered, but located here. Red flags went up in my head so I backed off it.
Click to expand...

No - couple of years back :)
 
Junkie said:
The 7500mi rule for buying vehicles applies to cars too, but it's less often that people buy used cars with <7500mi
Click to expand...

Daniel,

It doesn't if it's a 50 state vehicle. Same with a bike. 50 state legal, 0 miles is good to go in CA.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top