nht76-3.35 | NHTSA

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;

(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]

Interpretation ID: nht76-3.35