ID: nht75-5.44

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harney, Bambic & Moore

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of April 5, 1975, requesting an interpretation of Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Section 202 does not directly require any motor vehicle to be equipped with appropriate tires. It instructs this agency to establish, by regulation, motor vehicle safety standards which will in turn require vehicles to be so equipped. Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims -- passenger cars, implements this instruction with respect to passenger cars. A three-quarter-ton pick-up truck, however, would be subject instead to proposed Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects to act on that proposal in the near future.

Standards issued pursuant to Section 202 do not apply to vehicles after they have been purchased for the purpose of being rented or leased to the general public; they are applicable only to vehicles up to the point of first purchase.

SINCERELY,

HARNEY, BAMBIC & MOORE

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

April 5, 1975

Department of Transportation

I have a specific question with regard to the applicability of Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Does Section 202 apply to three-quarter ton pick-up trucks? If so, does the Act, pursuant to regulations promulgated under the Act, require that a vehicle such as a three-quarter ton pick-up truck be equipped with tires which, according to regulations (perhaps the Tire and Rim Association), are capable of carrying the gross vehicle weight as that gross vehicle weight is identified by the truck manufacturer (such as General Motors Corporation)?

My next question is whether or not Section 202 is meant to apply to companies or businesses which engage in the renting or leasing of such types of trucks to the general public.

I would very much appreciate any assistance you can give me with regard to the interpretation of Section 202 as outlined above.

Thank you very much for your courtesy and cooperation.

William S. Hart

ID: nht75-5.45

DATE: 08/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - California

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This reponds to your letter of June 12, 1975, requesting confirmation that you as a final-stage manufacturer would only have to check the application and release times of a truck whose chassis you shortened or lengthened in order to certify that vehicle to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Certification of vehicles to the standard is an area which our statutory scheme leaves to the manufacturers, and in which, aside from discussion of general principles, the agency has declined to issue statements of approval.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has stated that actual road tests by final stage manufacturers are not necessary to establish compliance with Standard No. 121 or other standards, where other reasonable means, such as engineering calculations coupled with laboratory tests, can be used to the same effect. The agency has recognized that small organizations cannot be expected to test to the same scale or by the same methods as the large integrated automotive manufacturers. Supplier warranties and instructions are one of the primary means by which smaller assemblers are expected to use statutory "due care" to see that their products conform.

From this discussion it should be apparent that verifying only the brake actuation and release functions will probably be an insufficient basis for certifying that the vehicle will comply, for example, with the stopping distance requirements of the standard. Engineering calculations may, however, satisfy you, in the exercise of due care, that the vehicle as modified meets all the requirements of the standard.

The incomplete vehicle documentation provided with the vehicle would generally serve as the basis of certification to equipment requirements, to the degree that the equipment is undisturbed. The addition of an axle may cause the air reservoirs to no longer satisfy the air volume requirements of the standard.

SINCERELY,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OFFICE OF EQUIPMENT

SINCERELY,

June 12, 1975

File M 18.03

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator

We are final stage truck manufacturers and often our equipment and operating requirements requires the shortening or lengthening of frame rails of certified cab and chassis equipped with air brakes.

Upon completion of our modifications, i.e.; lengthen or shorten the frame rails and air brake lines, we propose to certify the unit to be in compliance with FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems. Our certification will be based upon test data indicating the following two functions remain within compliance limits of the standard:

1. The brake system complies with the requirements of FMVSS 121 Paragraph No. S 5.3.3 Brake Actuation Time.

2. The Brake System complies with the requirements of FMVSS 121 Paragraph No. S 5.3.4 Brake Release Time.

The test data reflecting compliance would become a permanent part of our vehicle record files.

We request an answer to the following question.

Is the above proposed method and support data acceptable for FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems Vehicle Recertification?

Your prompt response would be appreciated.

ROSSELL O. LIGHTCAP, Chief Office of Equipment

ID: nht75-5.46

DATE: 09/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Jack Johnson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Motac's August 7, 1975, request for a determination that two platform trailers which are designed with a primary cargo-carrying surface which is less than 40 inches above the ground would qualify for exclusion from the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if manufactured before September 1, 1976.

I have enclosed a copy of the amendment to Standard No. 121 which excludes heavy hauler trailers from the requirements of the standard until September 1, 1976. You should note that the "40-inch cargo-carrying surface" criterion is measured in the unloaded condition, and that the body must not be equipped with sidewalls unless they are easily removable.

There is no requirement that the vehicle be designed for a certain type of cargo such as heavy machinery. Therefore your semi-trailers may qualify for the exclusion if they meet the criteria listed in the definition of heavy hauler trailer.

SINCERELY,

August 7, 1975

Department of Transportation

Attention: James B. Gregory Administrator

Regarding: FMVSS 121 Air Brake System- Trucks, Buses & Trailers. Clarification of docket no. 74-10; notice 5 and docket no's. 70-16, 70-17; notice no. 2.

We would appreciate your clarification of the above referenced documents regarding "Heavy Hauler Trailer", item 2, which states that "whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, etc.", is exempt from the antilock brake until Sept. 1, 1976.

We manufacture commercial platform trailers of various types at our West Coast factory. One type of trailer is a drop frame low platform semi-trailer, both single and tandem axle in lengths from 26 ft. long to 45 ft. long. They are equipped with 8:25 x 15 tires, therefore the "primary cargo-carrying surface", aft of the gooseneck drop, is 36 inches for the single axle semi-trailers and 39" for the tandem axle trailers from the ground.

These trailers are used for transporting furniture containers (4' long, x 8' wide x 8' plus or minus high), full grown nursury trees in large root containing boxes, or many types of general freight that is compatible to a drop frame low platform semi-trailer.

Since these trailers comply with the deck height of 40 inches or less for their primary "cargo-carrying surface", please advise if they are exempt from the antilock brake equipment. These trailers are not designed to transport such items as "crawler tractors, boom cranes, heavy machinery, etc."

MOTAC, INC.

Jack Johnson

Chief Engineer

ID: nht75-5.47

DATE: 05/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge receipt of your request for reconsideration of the NHTSA determination of February 18, 1975, to Oshkosh Truck Corporation that Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, permits the installation of a handoperated service brake control that meets the requirements of the standard.

We will advise you of our determination as soon as possible.

YOURS TRULY,

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

April 10, 1975

Richard Dyson Chief Council Office NHTSA

This responds to NHTSA approval of a hand-operated service brake control. Previous correspondence on this subject is attached for your reference.

Oshkosh trucks are equipped with service, emergency and parking brake systems which meet the requirements of FMVSS 121. As an additional parking brake, to be used in lieu of the standard parking brake supplied, a customer has requested a hand-operated control to activate the service brake system. Oshkosh Truck is concerned that installation of this control will circumvent certain FMVSS 121 parking brake and service brake requirements.

Parking brakes must be applied by an energy source not affected by an air pressure loss in the service brake system, as stated in FMVSS 121, Section 5.6.3. The parking brake control must be separate from the service brake control as stated in FMVSS 121, Section 5.6.4. If a truck is equipped with a hand-operated control which activates the service brake system and if this system, rather than the parking brake system, is used to park the truck, then Sections 5.6.3 and 5.6.4 are circumvented.

The service brake system must stop the truck in distances specified by FMVSS 121, Section 5.3.1. The hand-operated service brake control only applies air pressure to the front brakes. If a truck is equipped with a hand-operated control which applies only the front service brakes and if this system, rather than the normal dual service braking system (operating on front and rear brakes) is used to stop the truck, then stopping distances will be exceeded and Section 5.3.1 will be circumvented.

The NHTSA with the advent of FMVSS 121 specifies performance requirements for air brake systems. Oshkosh Truck has taken extraordinary measures to comply with these requirements and we are reluctant to add a component which circumvents any of those requirements, or by-passes any of our carefully engineered systems.

The NHTSA has determined that installation of a hand-operated control lever is acceptable. We are concerned that if this system is used to park a truck or stop a moving truck that it will not meet the requirements of FMVSS 121. Therefore, please reconsider the previous NHTSA determination and reply as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Danny J. Lanzdorf

Supervising Engineer

ID: nht75-5.48

DATE: 07/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Sheller-Globe's June 16, 1975, request for a statement of the requirements for 1976-model multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) specified by Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

Section S4.3 of the standard sets out the requirements for MPV's with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or more than 10,000 pounds. These requirements are the same in the future as at present.

Section S4.2 sets out the requirements for MPV's with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.2.1 for vehicles until August 15, 1975, and S4.2.2 for vehicles on or after August 15, 1975 until August 15, 1977). As the standard is presently effective, S4.2.2 will require that most MPV's of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with the same seat belts and warning systems as presently installed in passenger cars. I have enclosed a copy of those requirements as they were revised October 29, 1974 (40 FR 38380, October 31, 1974). Also enclosed is a Federal Register notice of December 6, 1974, that sets out the associated warning system requirements (40 FR 42692, December 6, 1974). The only MPV's excepted from these requirements are forward control vehicles, convertibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, motor homes, and vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers. They will continue to be required to meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 as presently in effect.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently proposed that a manufacturer have the option of meeting the requirements of S4.2.1 or S4.2.2 until January 1, 1976. I enclose a copy of that proposal, which includes a preamble discussion of the reasons for this proposal. A final determination will appear in the Federal Register.

Sincerely,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

June 16, 1975

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 - Occupant Crash Protection

There have been so many changes in the referenced safety standard that it is quite possible for an individual to misinterpret its requirements applicable to a motor vehicle.

As you know, Sheller-Globe Corporation manufacturers School Buses, Motor Homes (Recreational Vehicles) and Professional Vehicles (Funeral Coaches and Ambulances). All of these motor vehicles, except School Buses, fall under the definition of Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

The manufacturing divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation have requested of me direction pertinent to how they are required to comply to safety standard 208 for 1976 model year Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (M.P.V.'s).

The requirement for certain types of M.P.V.'s after December 31, 1975 was what was specified for passenger cars from September 1, 1973 to August 14, 1975 (Paragraph S4.1.2). However, the requirements of that paragraph have been revised or are proposed for revision.

Could you please direct myself and Sheller-Globe Corporation pertinent to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 - Occupant Crash Protection as it will apply to Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles for model year 1976?

Your direction in this matter would be deeply appreciated.

George R. Semark - Manager Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht75-5.49

DATE: 11/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jet Industries Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge receipt of the petition by Jet Industries for temporary exemption from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards, for the Subaru 360 van converted to electric power. The notice meets our procedural requirements, and a notice regarding public comment will appear in the Federal Register shortly.

I am also replying to your letter of October 10, 1975, to Mr. Vinson, our Senior Staff Attorney, renewing your request to import 200 Subaru 360 vans, pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2) (vii) for test purposes and for licensing on the public roads. You intend to convert these vehicles to electric power. You have stated that the vehicles will be leased rather than sold and at the end of one year they will be exported to Canada. You have also provided a feasibility plan for testing the utility of these vehicles, as converted to electric power, under the varied conditions of terrain and climate that exist in the 50 United States and Puerto Rico. Therefore you have met the legal conditions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(vii) required of an importer who imports vehicles for purposes of test or experiment.

We have no objection to your importing up to 200 Subaru vans for the purposes outlined in your letter. However, because of the large number of vehicles involved, we deem it important for enforcement purposes to insure that the vehicles are used for the purposes indicated and will be disposed of according to your present plan. Therefore, pursuant to Section 112 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, you are required to furnish the following information at the times requested, to the Director, Office of Standards Enforcement, NHTSA;

(1) The expected arrival date and port of entry of any vehicle to be imported pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(2)(vii), in advance of the arrival of such vehicle;

(2) The name and address of the lessee of each vehicle imported pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(2)(vii), within two weeks of delivery of such vehicle to such lessee; and

(3) Satisfactory proof of export of each vehicle imported pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(2)(vii), within two weeks of the expiration of the period allowed by 12.80 (b)(2)(vii).

Failure to provide this information may constitute violations of Section 108 (a)(1)(B) of the Act for which civil penalties may be imposed.

YOURS TRULY,

JET INDUSTRIES LTD.

October 10, 1975

Taylor Vincent National Highway Transport Safety Administration

We hereby wish to renew our request to import 200 Subaru 360 Vans for conversion to Electric Battery Power and license them for use on Public Highways.

The reason for this request is to provide for extensive territorial tests in the U.S., including Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The tests hope to determine a broad spectrum of feasibility in the following areas:

1. CLIMATES

A. Cold moist climates where snow becomes alternately icy and slushy.

1. Handling characteristics will vary significantly.

2. Performance will be affected by cold, drag (in slushy conditions).

3. Moisture can have deteriorating effects on wiring, motors and controls if not properly protected.

B. Cold dry climates where salt is used on highways. Presenting problems as under no. 1.

C. Hot dry conditions.

D. Hot humid areas, which exist in cities near salt water -- where moisture laden air has deteriorating effect.

2. TERRAIN

A. Flat country with paved roads.

B. Cities with moderate grades.

C. Steep grades.

3. TRAFFIC

A. Dense fast moving traffic. In some cities, traffic lights are regulated to keep flow moving at 30-40 miles per hour.

B. Dense slow moving traffic, such as cross town in Mid-Manhattan -- with lots of stops and starts, moving a few car lengths at a time.

4. PARKING

A. Large cities have very few locations where daytime inner city charging outlets will be available in parking lots or garages. This is because of constant in and out use of parking spaces -- seldom assigned to individual customers.

B. Suburban communities where service stations and shopping center parking lots may install charging meters.

5. OPERATING COSTS

A. Utility rates vary so much in different sections of the U.S. that the combination of terrain, climate and rates will indicate a variety of costs will surface. This could result in Electric Vehicles being uneconomical in some areas.

6. CHARGING FACILITIES

A. Will always be provided by Fleet Users on own premises.

B. Apartment dwellers will have real problems in large cities where "garages are contracted out to parking companies whose operations are indifferent to tenants' special requests for individual stalls and installation of electrical outlets for charging.

C. Smaller community Apartments with individual stalls may have electric outlets installed by management.

D. Individual houses with parking garages or car ports can usually have convenient electrical outlets installed.

E. Street parking charging meters would certainly be problematical in large inner cities.

1. Vandalism and theft of extension cords.

2. I/C vehicles "grabbing" meter spaces and paying "toll" regardless of need for charging.

3. Alternate side of the street "Musical Chair Parking" at times designated.

4. Possibility of electrocution from "Vandalized" extension cords -- youngsters touching cut ends while standing on wet street. (Or owners as a matter of fact.)

In some states there may be as many as 10 to 20 vehicles being tested, while in others as few as one or two. Determination will be made in accordance with the population density and probable need for anti-pollution vehicles.

It is our understanding that such permission from you designates that the vehicles must be exported within one year. We are in a position to export these to Canada at any time. Leases will be made with fleet users for twelve month periods with this in mind.

Thanking you for your early attention to this matter, we are

A. Forbes Crawford

President

ID: nht75-5.5

DATE: 08/13/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of March 5, 1975, concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to brake hose and brake hose assemblies used in military vehicles.

Part 571.7(c) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 49 CFR 571.7(c), provides that:

No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

Therefore, brake hose and brake hose assemblies sold to the military in conformity with contractual specifications are not subject to any of the requirements of Standard No. 106-74. While Part 571.7(c) appears to exclude from the requirements of Standard No. 106-74 only that hose which is sold directly to the Armed Forces, the NHTSA interprets this section as also excluding that hose which is sold to military contractors, under contracts requiring it to conform to military specifications such as MIL-H-3992C, for installation in vehicles which are in turn sold directly to the military. We are considering the issuance of an interpretive amendment of Part 571.7(c) to this effect.

SINCERELY,

March 5, 1975

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm..

Attention: Francis Armstrong

Subject: MVSS No. 106

Effective March 1, 1975 we started shipping hydraulic brake hose to our various customers, conforming to subject standard. This includes the new labeling band which requires a price increase.

One customer, A. M. General, in South Bend, Indiana has objected to this. Their end product is military vehicles on prime government contracts, which they claim are not covered by the standard.

Please advise if such vehicles are included in the standard.

CONTINENTAL HYDRAULIC HOSE CORP.

James W. Long

President

ID: nht75-5.50

DATE: 10/01/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Maslansky; Niles; Dougherty & Boyajian

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 31, 1975, in which you ask whether National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approval is necessary before selling imported inertia switches in this country.

No specific NHTSA approval is required. However, you should be aware of the regulations governing the importation for sale of motor vehicle equipment into the United States. These regulations provide in part that if imported motor vehicle equipment is not certified by the manufacturer as having complied with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, upon entry the importer must file a declaration that no safety standards were applicable to the equipment at the time it was manufactured, that the equipment is exempt from applicable safety standards, or that the equipment has been or shortly will be brought into compliance with applicable safety standards (19 CFR @ 12.80(b)).

The NHTSA has issued no safety standards concerning inertia switches in motor vehicle electrical systems. However, the agency recently issued on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (40 FR 40853, September 4, 1975) on the subject of motor vehicle electrical system integrity, with the intent of eventually issuing a safety standard in that area.

We hope this information is of assistance. If you have any further questions, please write us.

ID: nht75-5.6

DATE: 12/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Conti Rubber Products

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your October 29, 1975, letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars, to moped tires.

Mopeds are classified under 49 CFR 571.3 as "motor-driven cycles", a subcategory of "motorcycles", for the purposes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations. Therefore, tires designed for use on mopeds are tires designed for use on motorcycles and, as such, are subject to Standard No. 119. The NHTSA is considering an amendment of Standard No. 119 which would modify the requirements applicable to such tires, and expects to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Conti RUBBER PRODUCTS INC.

October 29, 1975

Frank Berudt -- Acting Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berudt:

We would appreciate receiving a ruling whether MOPED tires in the sizes 2-17 and 2 1/4-17 fall under MVSS119.

A MOPED is a motorized bicycle with a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour.

We would appreciate your fastest possible reply.

Very truly yours,

George H. Schildge -- Exec. Vice President

ID: nht75-5.7

DATE: 11/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bucyrus-Erie Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Bucyrus-Erie's October 8, 1975, suggestion that the terms "unloaded vehicle weight and "passenger-carrying capacity" be defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 to reflect explanations of them that appeared in the preamble of recent NHTSA rulemaking on Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. (40 FR 38160, August 27, 1975). You believe that removable portions of a vehicle that are essential to its function (e.g., the boom on a mobile crane) should not be considered part of the vehicle's "cargo" as that term is used in the present definition of unloaded vehicle weight.

The NHTSA explained in the preamble to which you refer that the unloaded vehicle weight is easily determined by, in most cases, subtracting the weight of cargo and occupants from the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) assigned to the vehicle by the manufacturer. We believe that the term "cargo" clearly indicates that the manufacturer must only subtract the weight of commodities or freight that the vehicle is designed to carry as a transportation function. Presumably the manufacturer of a mobile crane would have no difficulty in concluding under the present definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" that its vehicle does not transport "cargo" and that no value must be subtracted from the GVWR on this account.

It does appear that the term "passenger-carrying capacity" used in Standard No. 121 could be expanded to reflect the exclusion of the operating crew from consideration as passengers. In response to your request we are considering an amendment of S3 to make this concept clearer.

SINCERELY,

BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY

October 8, 1975

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This letter is in response to Docket No. 75-16 Notice 02, which appeared on Page 38160 of the August 27th, Federal Register.

In this article the NHTSA responded to the concern of specialized equipment manufacturers over the terms "unloaded vehicle weight" and "passenger-carrying capacity." After reviewing the explanation issued by the NHTSA, we understand that a mobile crane could be exempt from MVSS 121 if it meets the following conditions.

1. Its maximum attainable speed in two miles is not more than 45 mph.

2. It has an unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR. Example: equipment which is essential to the crane's function, such as, boom, counterweight, etc., may be removed and transported separately. This essential equipment can be subtracted (as cargo) from the GVWR when determining the unloaded vehicle weight.

Note: We do not believe that the term cargo correctly describes the essential equipment which is removed from a mobile crane and transported by alternate means to the next working site for reassembly.

3. It has seating capacity for the driver and essential operating crew, but not passengers.

The NHSTA's explanation prior to amending Section 571.121 implies the above. Our concern is that this explanation is not contained within 49 CFR Section 571.3, and therefore this important qualification would not be available to one referring only to the CFR.

We would like to suggest that the NHSTA clarify within CFR Title 49, the terms "Passenger" and "unloaded vehicle weight," which would reflect the views expressed in the aforementioned Federal Register Article.

Bruce J. Smith Engineering Services Dept.