ID: nht76-3.27

DATE: 05/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Willamette Wheel Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your April 21, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the modification work that you perform on previously certified Datsun pickup trucks, which consists of converting them from two-wheel- to four-wheel-drive vehicles.

As indicated in the October 30, 1975, letter from Richard B. Dyson to you, you are a vehicle alterer who is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. That section requires that you affix a label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The Federal government does not certify or otherwise issue advance approval of motor vehicles. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the statement on the label constitutes your certification of conformity. If you fail to provide this certification, or if in the exercise of due care you have reason to know that it is false or misleading, you are subject to civil penalties under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

All altered vehicles must comply fully with all applicable safety standards. Therefore, as Mr. Schwimmer further explained, you would not be relieved of the requirements of @ 567.7 simply by virtue of the fact that, as altered, the vehicle complied fully with the standards. You would be relieved of the requirements only if both of the following conditions were met:

(i) the alteration is performed solely by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as tire and rim assemblies, or by minor finishing operations such as painting; and

(ii) the stated weight ratings of the vehicle are still valid.

Because the conversion of the vehicles in question does not meet the first condition, you are subject to the requirements of @ 567.7. Please note further that, if your modifications affect the validity of the weight ratings assigned to the vehicles by Datsun, your label must show valid, modified ratings.

An information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" is enclosed for your convenience.

ID: nht76-3.28

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United Recreational Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 16, 1976, request for information on the requirements for a manufacturer of a light utility trailer which is designed to carry snowmobiles. I regret that we have not responded sooner.

The information you request appears in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and I enclose an information sheet which explains how this material may be acquired.

Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR Part 566), specifies identification information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of vehicles and equipment regulated by our standards.

Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), specifies the content and location of the certification label or tag which must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards.

At this time the only Federal safety standards applicable to all trailers are Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and Standard No. 120, Tire and Rim Selection for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The enclosed information sheet also explains how to acquire those regulations.

Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, became effective on January 1, 1975, in the case of trailers which the manufacturer has decided to equip with air brakes. Thus trailers which you manufacture on or after January 1, 1975, which utilize air brakes must meet the air brake standard.

After you have reviewed the regulations I have referred to, please contact me if you have any further questions.

ID: nht76-3.29

DATE: 03/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Maurice J. Sopp & Son

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1976, concerning the sale of a 1975 Chevrolet Step Van that has been modified by the addition of a "boiler" assembly.

@@ 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, provide that the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) appearing on the certification label

shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity . . .

Further, @ 567.7 provides that a person who, before the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, alters a previously certified vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid shall affix to the vehicle an additional label that certifies the modified weight ratings and the vehicle's continued compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your letter indicates that the unloaded weight of the van, as altered by Steamaster Boiler Co., exceeds the original 10,000 pound GVWR. From this information, it appears that there has been a violation of the Certification regulation. While we would have to investigate your role as the dealer in this transaction to determine your precise liability, we advise you not to sell the vehicle in its present condition.

ID: nht76-3.3

DATE: 05/05/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your April 14, 1976, letter concerning the meaning of the effective dates of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You are correct in your understanding that a vehicle's date of sale is irrelevant to a determination of which standards are applicable to it. 49 CFR @ 571.7(a), Applicability, specifies in relevant part:

. . . each standard . . . applies according to its terms to all motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment the manufacturer of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard.

For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a chassis, you are permitted by 49 CFR @ 567.5(a) (7) to treat as the time that manufacture is "completed" for the purposes of @ 571.7(a) any date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle and no later than the date of completion of final-stage manufacture, regardless of when the body or chassis was sold. Please note that you must be consistent in your choice of completion date, e.g., you may not choose one date to determine applicability of certain standards while choosing another date for other standards.

ID: nht76-3.30

DATE: 06/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Honorable John M. Murphy; House of Representatives

COPYEE: CONGRESSMAN VAN DEELIN

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to former Chairman Lionel Van Deerlin's April 21, 1976, letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, as applied to motor homes. His letter is particularly concerned with the request of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) for a delay in the standard's effective date of September 1, 1976, for the first phase of the requirements that apply to motor homes.

This effective date requires clarification in the case of multi-stage vehicles. RVIA members typically manufacture motor homes by installing bodies on chassis that have been supplied to them by other manufacturers. In such situations, the meaning of the September 1, 1976, effective date is not that all motor homes completed after that date must comply with the standard. Section 567.5(a)(7) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, permits the final stage manufacturer of a multi-stage vehicle to consider as the vehicle's date of manufacture any date that is neither earlier than the completion date of the chassis nor later than the completion date of the entire vehicle. The practical result of this provision is that the standard requires compliance only of those motor homes whose chassis are completed on or after September 1, 1976.

Because the ability of a motor home to comply with Standard No. 301-75 is substantially affected by both the design of the chassis and the manner in which the vehicle is completed, it is not meaningful to apply the standard directly to incomplete vehicles. All that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires of incomplete vehicles is the following: those that are manufactured after September 1, 1976, must be capable of being completed into complying motor homes and must be accompanied by the incomplete vehicle document described in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. That document will include, with respect to Standard No. 301-75, either (i) a statement that the motor home as completed will comply with the standard provided no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, or (ii) a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed motor home will comply with the standard. While Part 568 generally offers the incomplete vehicle manufacturer a third option -- to make no representation whatever of the compliance status of his product -- that option is unavailable in this context because his work substantially affects compliance.

The RVIA has argued that a delay in the standard's effective date for completed motor homes is necessary for its members to gain experience with chassis that have been designed for completion into complying motor homes. The NHTSA recognizes the need for such experience or its equivalent through the provision of technical information by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. However, the agency expects motor home manufacturers to obtain this experience or information, through cooperation with the chassis manufacturers, in advance of the September 1, 1976, effective date. While such advance manufacturing or provision of information on the part of chassis manufacturers is not required by any regulations of this agency, it is required by the commercial realities of their relationships with the motor home manufacturers. A simple delay in the standard's effective date would merely delay the date by which incomplete vehicle manufacturers would be required by the NHTSA to supply chassis that have been designed for completion into complying motor homes. Such a delay would thus not provide the relief that the RVIA has requested.

The RVIA has, in effect, requested the agency to establish an "experience interval" by retaining September 1, 1976, as the time by which chassis must be designed for ultimate compliance and setting a new and later "secondary" effective date for the activities of the RVIA members. With this approach, a completed motor home would be required to comply with Standard No. 301-75 only if it were based on a chassis manufactured after the secondary effective date. While the establishment of such an "experience interval" might at first appear to be a simple solution to an acknowledged problem, the NHTSA has concluded that it is not only unnecessary but inappropriate as well.

It is unnecessary because the ordinary private dealings between motor home manufacturers and their suppliers can ensure that sufficient technical information, experience with redesigned chassis, or some combination of the two will be available before the "primary" effective date. The legal requirement of compliance by vehicles built with chassis that are manufactured after that date can be expected to trigger those market forces which will induce suppliers of incomplete vehicles to cooperate with RVIA members. Any "experience interval" would represent an intrusion by the government into the satisfactory operation of those forces. This position was announced in the agency's response to an RVIA petition for reconsideration of effective dates (39 FR 40857, November 21, 1974) (copy enclosed).

The design of those motor homes that do not already comply with Standard No. 301-75 can be modified in many ways to achieve compliance. Changes might be made in both chassis and bodies. Bodies might be redesigned in such a way that no change in chassis construction is necessary. Conversely, all of the necessary protection might be incorporated in an upgraded chassis design, assuming that the addition of a motor home body did not present protrusions that would degrade this protection. In fact, this latter approach is already being followed in the case of school buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of more than 10,000 pounds. I understand that the School Bus Manufacturers Institute and several of its major chassis suppliers have reached agreements that provide for substantially all the necessary impact protection in the chassis.

While RVIA members may not be as successful as the schoolbus manufacturers have been in inducing their chassis suppliers to redesign for compliance, the above example illustrates the importance of the government's avoiding involvement in such contractual relationships. This agency is concerned in the first instance with the performance of completed vehicles, rather than the allocation between incomplete vehicle manufacturers and final-stage manufacturers of the task of redesigning for such performance. The agency lacks both the information and the expertise to determine either the most appropriate form of such redesign or the time that each manufacturer might consider desirable to effect the transition. This determination is therefore best made through cooperation or negotiation between the private parties involved. Because this determination is inextricably connected with decisions concerning the advance supply of redesigned chassis, it is impossible for the NHTSA to become involved in negotiations over the latter without interference in the former. The creation of an "experience interval" as requested by the RVIA would therefore be inappropriate. In any event, such a modification of the standard's effective dates is prohibited by Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492).

Finally, the NHTSA has not found it necessary to take special steps to encourage incomplete vehicle manufacturers to furnish advance information to motor home manufacturers. We understand that such cooperation is already taking place.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND FINANCE

April 21, 1976

James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

The Recreational Vehicle Industry Association has contacted me regarding the Fuel System Integrity Standard (Standard 301) as it applies to manufacturers of motor homes. As you are aware, the first stage of the standard becomes effective on September 1, 1976.

It is my understanding that the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association has petitioned the NHTSA to delay the effective date of the Standard insofar as it applies to multi-stage vehicles. The Recreational Vehicle Industry Association maintains that motor home manufacturers should not have to comply with the new standard until they have received and had an opportunity to gain experience with the new complying incomplete vehicles. I can certainly appreciate the desire of NHTSA to see that the American motorist is provided the additional protection from Standard 301 as soon as possible, but I am also sympathetic to the difficulties which the motor home manufacturer may face.

I would appreciate your sending me any information you have explaining the NHTSA decision to deny the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association petition for an extension of time. Would you also please indicate what efforts, if any, NHTSA has made to see that chassis manufacturers supply the motor home manufacturers with information regarding the new complying chassis so that the second-stage manufacturer will be able to anticipate and plan necessary adjustments to insure that the completed vehicle also complies with the standard.

Thank you for your assistance.

Lionel Van Deerlin Chairman

ID: nht76-3.31

DATE: 06/30/76

FROM: JOHN WOMACK FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: FAM Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 17, 1976, question whether special safety requirements exist for a vehicle that is modified to permit its operation by a handicapped person from a wheelchair that is secured at the driver's position.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that

@ 1397(a)(1) No person shall --

(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment

unless it is in conformity with all applicable standards. If your modifications are made to a new vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale and involve more than the addition of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, Part 567 of our regulations requires that the vehicle remain in compliance following these alterations and that any change of gross vehicle weight rating or type classification be noted (49 CFR 567.7).

Assuming that the vehicle you modify is a multipurpose passenger vehicle under NHTSA regulations (e.g., a van-type vehicle that does not qualify as a truck) (49 CFR 571.3), it appears from your description of intended modifications that compliance with the following Federal motor vehicle safety standards might be affected:

Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Display

Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors

Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems

Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection

Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

I have enclosed an information sheet that explains how to obtain copies of our standards and regulations.

There are no additional Federal motor vehicle safety requirements that apply to vehicles operated by a handicapped person sitting at the driver's position in a wheelchair. I have enclosed a Veterans Administration document detailing their specifications for vehicle modifications.

Exemptions from the motor vehicle safety standards are available only to manufacturers of motor vehicles in accordance with @ 123 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).

FAM Enterprises

May 17, 1976

Department of Transportation

We are building a vehicle for the handicapped driver that is confined to a wheel chair. This vehicle is so designed that the driver may enter the vehicle by himself and operate all of the functions of this vehicle without leaving his wheelchair. Our intentions are to market this vehicle on a commercial basis.

Safety and complying with the present safety regulation is of great concern to us. Are there certain safety items that may be eliminated or need to be installed that are different from a normal driving vehicle? Safety catches will be installed to hold the chair in place in case of severe impact or an accident. If you feel that some items maybe changed, I would appreciate knowing of these prior to completing our first unit. We hope to have this in operation by the end of August, 1976. If some waivers are required, would you please put us in contact with the proper authorities so that we can take the necessary action to obtain these waivers.

Gary K. Mercer

ID: nht76-3.32

DATE: 04/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hackney & Sons Inc.

COPYEE: BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 2, 1975, concerning the duties of a manufacturer of a beverage trailer that, when fully loaded, would overload a light-duty truck by which it might be towed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not directly regulate the use of motor vehicles. Instead, it regulates their manufacture, with a view towards their expected and intended uses. If a trailer manufacturer knows that his product is likely to be towed by a vehicle of insufficient load-carrying capacity, the NHTSA expects him to take reasonalbe steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of such misuse. Otherwise, the trailer would be considered to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety.

In the first hypothetical situation presented in your letter, there would be no violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. In Situation 2, we are not prepared to state categorically whether or not the trailer manufacturer could be obliged to assume defect responsibility. Such responsibility might be minimized assuming that the written warning to which you refer clearly indicates (i) what load ratings are necessary as a minimum for the towing vehicle and (ii) that the trailer must not be towed by a vehicle without such load ratings. Nevertheless, the lines of responsibility between two such parties are not that clear-cut, especially where the trailer manufacturer knowingly delivers for introduction into interstate commerce a vehicle which immediately results in a serious overload situation.

In Situation 3, the trailer would probably contain a safety-related defect, because its advertising would promote its misuse in a way that would create a safety hazard. In Situation 4, the trailer would probably also be considered to contain a safety-related defect, because the total payload capacity could be calculated, and the warnings to limit the actual load to the limits of the towing vehicle could not reasonably be expected to be observed.

You have also asked more generally for a description of the circumstances under which trailers of this type might be considered to contain safety-related defects. The NHTSA cannot define in advance all such possible circumstances. Among them, however, would be those in which the owner's manual lacked the warning described above for Situation 2 and those in which the trailer's advertising promoted its misuse.

I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for examination of the possibility that the user of a mismatched combination of vehicles, if he is an interstate carrier, would be in violation of their regulations. There may also be State laws prohibiting local carriers from making such combinations.

Thank you for your concern for safety on the highways. We especially appreciate your realization that a manufacturer can have ethical duties that go beyond his legal duties.

ID: nht76-3.33

DATE: 03/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Clarence J. Baudhuin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 29, 1976, letter to Secretary Coleman, concerning problems with your 22 foot Executive "MINI" Motorhome.

@@ 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, provide that a motor vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) shall

not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

Your letter and its enclosures indicate that your vehicle's weight is 9180 pounds, its designated seating capacity is six, and the GVWR specified by Executive is 9000 pounds. From this information, there appears to be a violation by Executive of Part 567. In addition, the possibility that the rear axle may be overloaded under normal conditions of use may constitute a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I have forwarded your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement for such further action as may be appropriate.

Please note that a final-stage manufacturer is not automatically prohibited from certifying a GVWR that differs from that specified by the chassis manufacturer. For the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, Executive is free to certify a lower GVWR, provided the above-cited constraint is observed.

The remaining questions presented in your letter are not matters over which we have jurisdiction, and probably are most appropriately handled by a private attorney.

ID: nht76-3.34

DATE: 06/22/76

FROM: T. W. HERLIHY FOR S. P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: Wisconsin Trailer Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 2, 1976, request for written notification that the "heavy hauler trailer" exclusion of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, has been extended to September 1, 1977. You also request confirmation that manufacturers may assign multiple gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) in fulfilling their responsibilities under Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567) of our regulations, but that only ratings unqualified by speed restrictions will be permitted after September or October 1976.

I have enclosed a copy of the amendment that extends the "heavy hauler" exclusion of Standard No. 121 from September 1, 1976, to September 1, 1977. The date change in that amendment has been circled.

The NHTSA requires that the GVWR and GAWR placed on the certification plate in accordance with Part 567 be unqualified by speed restriction and be based on the 60-mph capabilities assigned to the tire and rims by the United States Tire and Rim Association. Other GVWR and GAWR values may be assigned by the manufacturer, but they must be listed after the information required on the Part 567 certification plate, and they do not form the basis of a vehicle's compliance with safety standards such as Standard No. 121.

In our November 20, 1975, letter to you on the same subject, we noted that we were considering a revision of the definition of GVWR and GAWR to conform to this interpretation. That proposal has been issued and a copy is enclosed for your information.

The proposal has not been made final as of the date of this letter. Please note that multiple ratings would continue to be permitted under the proposal, so long as the restricted rating appears first on the certification plate.

ID: nht76-3.35

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Henke Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, letter concerning the relationship between snow plows that you manufacture and the front-axle GAWR's of the vehicles on which they are mounted. Your questions and our answers are as follows:

Questions 1. "Somewhere I read where fire trucks are not governed by FMVSS121 or axle weight restrictions as an emergency vehicle. Is this true?"

Standard No. 121 does not apply to fire fighting vehicles manufactured before June 1, 1976. In addition, it does not apply to such a vehicle manufactured from June 1, 1976, to August 31, 1977, that either has a GAWR for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more, or has two or more front, steerable axles with a GAWR of 16,000 pounds or more for each axle. Further, the standard does not apply to any vehicle meeting any one of criteria (a) through (d), as follows:

(a) An overall vehicle width of 108 inches or more;

(b) An axle that has a GAWR of 29,000 pounds or more;

(c) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 33 mph; or

(d) (1) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 45 mph, and

(2) An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR, and

(3) No passenger-carrying capacity.

Question 2. "Do you consider a snow plow an emergency piece of equipment?"

There are no exemptions in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations for "emergency vehicles" or "emergency equipment".

Question 3. "Would a D.O.T. compliance officer require a plow to be raised for weighing to check the GAWR?"

In determining whether a vehicle equipped with a snow plow has been assigned an improper GAWR, the NHTSA will consider the load imposed on the axle system when the plow is in the raised position.

Question 4. "The box or fold down flap I mention in letter - would this be considered a legal method of meeting GAWR, assuming it was part of a snow plow procedure program?"

Our letter of May 9, 1974, explained that proper weight ratings depend on what you, as a vehicle alterer, know, or can reasonably be expected to know, about how the plow-equipped trucks are likely to be loaded. It stated further:

A warning to the buyer not to exceed the rated cargo load or the weight ratings. . .would not be sufficient if it were reasonable to expect that the vehicles would, in practice, exceed these ratings at normal full load despite the warning.

Similarly, if the volume-reducing purpose of the box or fold down flap described in your letter to county engineers is likely to be defeated (whether intentionally of accidentally), then neither would be sufficient to validate a GAWR that would otherwise be exceeded by a fully loaded axle. If, on the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that your recommended loading procedure will be followed, then it is permissible to base the GAWR on the correspondingly reduced "full" load.

Question 5. "When weighing a truck for compliance would a full load of ballast be required even though the snow plowing procedure of governmental bodies call out a less than full load of ballast?"

The considerations discussed in #4 above apply here as well.

Question 6. "When we bid to a State where drawings and or detailed specifications of snow removal equipment are called out and no axle sizes or dump box sizes are called out are we responsible for this plow overweighing a front axle? We do not mount any equipment, we furnish equipment as specified."

The primary responsibility for weight ratings is with the party who, by mounting the snow plow, is the vehicle alterer. If, however, your advertising or bids promote the use of the snow plow in situations where front axles are likely to be overloaded, then the plow may be considered to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, which would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

YOURS TRULY,

Henke MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

January 26, 1976

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I am sorry this letter is so late but I want to thank you for answering our questions of May 9, 1974, your reference number N40-30(MPP).

As a manufacturer that mounts some show plows and auxiliary equipment for Iowa governmental bodies, we have established definite procedures that we follow as to mounting and recommending equipment that does not overload axles.

I have enclosed a letter sent to County Engineers in Iowa regarding the purchase of trucks to comply with laws for their intended useage. I have also enclosed snow plow literature showing weights imposed on front axles, also a copy of a recent D/A bulletin from Cincinnati.

Question 1. Somewhere I read where fire trucks are not governed by FMVSS121 or axle weight restrictions as an emergency vehicle. Is this true?

Question 2. Do you consider a snow plow an emergency piece of equipment?

Question 3. Would a D.O.T. compliance officer require a plow to be raised for weighing to check the GAWR?

Question 4. The box or fold down flap I mention in letter - would this be considered a legal method of meeting GAWR, assuming it was part of a snow plow procedure program?

Question 5. When weighing a truck for compliance would a full load of ballast be required even though the snow plowing procedure of governmental bodies call out a less than full load of ballast?

Question 6. When we bid to a State where drawings and or detailed specifications of snow removal equipment are called cut and no axle sizes or dump box sizes are called out are we responsible for this plow overweighing a front axle? We do not mount any equipment, we furnish equipment as specified.

We would appreciate any suggestions you may have and any comments as to our statements or procedures.

Thank you for your consideration.

HENKE MFG. CORP.

Edward A. Green President

[Attachments Omitted]