Actual federal weight law rules, some questions and answers

[jmramiller]

I have per the request of a few members, stickied this post. Please note, this is not a place to argue whether a law makes sense or not, just what the laws are. If you have a question about wt laws, that appears to be NOT answered in some way shape or form, please ask, and hopefully some of the ACTUAL weights and measures LEO's will answer, or those with some actual knowledge.

In the mean time, I do thank the OP for starting this thread, altho I have taken the liberty to change the title to one I think and hope will be a bit more informative in name.

marty
TV moderator

Some on this forum suggests that RAWR per the door sticker is legally binding by federal law. Specifically by para f of FMCSA:

(f) Except as provided herein, States may not enforce on the Interstate System vehicle weight limits of less than 20,000 pounds on a single axle, 34,000 pounds on a tandem axle, or the weights derived from the Bridge Formula, up to a maximum of 80,000 pounds, including all enforcement tolerances. States may not limit tire loads to less than 500 pounds per inch of tire or tread width, except that such limits may not be applied to tires on the steering axle. States may not limit steering axle weights to less than 20,000 pounds or the axle rating established by the manufacturer, whichever is lower.

The argument is that the last half of the last sentence "the axle rating established by the manufacturer, whichever is lower." is referring to the door sticker RAWR.

It is my contention that this actually refers to the "steering axle" which according to my English classes is the subject of the sentence. My contention is to find a standard relating to the rear axle in para f you have to refer back to the first sentence:
"States may not enforce on the Interstate System vehicle weight limits of less than 20,000 pounds on a single axle"

I would like to hear from LEO's who might have a comment on this subject. I would also love to hear from anyone who can post a copy of a citation issued for exceeding door sticker weight ratings. A link to the violated code would be nice also.

My only agenda here is to find out what really is and what really is not. I have intentionally omitted the names of those who make these claims because I want this to be about the law not people's claims.

Thanks.

[BertP]

You're right, Jim. Section 110 specifies the contents of the tag and Section 120 species what tires and rims are required on vehicle so, yes, they are legally binding in that sense. Section 120 uses the definitions in Section 110 for its definitions. I went through the regs fairly quickly but I didn't see anywhere that said that you are not permitted to exceed the GVWR of a vehicle, though.

Bert

[JIMNLIN]

Wadcutter wrote:
JIMNLIN
Why do you keep bringing up FMCSA? It doesn't apply. An RVer doesn't have to be concerned with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act. By continually harping on the FMCSA it just shows you don't have a grasp of the topic. Don't confuse these other folks by continually posting things that have no bearing on the topic.
It's like the guy who has taken 6 karate lessons. He knows just enough to be dangerous but not enough to know what it is he's talking about. Everything you're posting is from a "neighbor", "someone", "unnamed Lt", and FMCSA references that don't apply.
FMCSA doesn't apply. Forget about it. Doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

571 FMCSA regs on door tag info does apply just as federal motor vehicle safety standards apply part 49 sect 567.4 thats says that door tag is a legal document. I never said we need a commercial license for our RVs. What those fed laws I just mention says is your mattress tag theory is just that, your theory. Door tag info is a legal document per those fed regs I mentioned above. Your saying they don't apply ?? Your kiddin' , right ??
How your/my state enforces those regs is why I keep saying , check with your state for their input on how thay enforce those FMCSA regs.
JIM

[JIMNLIN]

BertP wrote:

jmramiller wrote:
OK Bert, take these difinitions and show me where they are used that makes them legally binding for a non commercial TV. We all know the diffinitions of the terms - that is not in question.

I didn't say that they were legally binding. I simply pointed out that since they use the manufacturer's ratings in their definitions, it is possible that the local LEO's interpret that to mean that they are to use the manufacturer’s ratings in the absence of any other specific rating. Since there are a number of States that do not have a registered weight for privately registered vehicles, how do you determine if the vehicle is overweight or not? It just seems to me that it would be reasonable for a LEO to reference the door tag and use the FMCSA definitions for justification. After all, those definitions are used in quite a few regulations from licensing to vehicle equipment requirements. Whether a citation issued that way would stand up in court or not is a separate issue.

Bert

bert,
if you will look at FMCSA 571.110 and 571.120 it gives the legal definitions and ties to GAWR/GVWR/door placard/tire/wheel regs.
I don't know how to make a clickie but go th FMCSA home page/then vehicle regs in the search box/then scroll down to part 571/then scroll to 571.110 and 571.120 which gives us the regs that debunks the mattress tag theory. that tag is there for a legal reason and part 49 567.4 of the federal motor vehicle safety standards gives their requirements for that tag.
JIM
JIM

[BertP]

jmramiller wrote:
OK Bert, take these difinitions and show me where they are used that makes them legally binding for a non commercial TV. We all know the diffinitions of the terms - that is not in question.

I didn't say that they were legally binding. I simply pointed out that since they use the manufacturer's ratings in their definitions, it is possible that the local LEO's interpret that to mean that they are to use the manufacturer’s ratings in the absence of any other specific rating. Since there are a number of States that do not have a registered weight for privately registered vehicles, how do you determine if the vehicle is overweight or not? It just seems to me that it would be reasonable for a LEO to reference the door tag and use the FMCSA definitions for justification. After all, those definitions are used in quite a few regulations from licensing to vehicle equipment requirements. Whether a citation issued that way would stand up in court or not is a separate issue.

Bert

[jmramiller]

BertP wrote:
I think that Jim has a point. If you look at the FMCSA regs, you will find the following definitions:

Gross axle weight rating or GAWR means the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load–carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire–ground interfaces.

Gross combination weight rating or GCWR means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a combination vehicle.

Gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.

Notice that all of the definitions use the manufacturer's numbers. So, what will happen when a LEO needs to decide if a vehicle is overweight or not? In States and Provinces where private vehicle register their weight, no problem: just use the registered weight of the vehicle. But, what about States and Provinces where there is no registered weight for a vehicle? I can see a LEO interpreting the FMCSA regs to say that in the absence of any other definition, the manufacturer's GVWR as the reference point. Note that I amm not suggesting that that is how it is, just that that is how it may be interpreted.

Bert

OK Bert, take these difinitions and show me where they are used that makes them legally binding for a non commercial TV. We all know the diffinitions of the terms - that is not in question.

[Wadcutter]

JIMNLIN
Why do you keep bringing up FMCSA? It doesn't apply. An RVer doesn't have to be concerned with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act. By continually harping on the FMCSA it just shows you don't have a grasp of the topic. Don't confuse these other folks by continually posting things that have no bearing on the topic.
It's like the guy who has taken 6 karate lessons. He knows just enough to be dangerous but not enough to know what it is he's talking about. Everything you're posting is from a "neighbor", "someone", "unnamed Lt", and FMCSA references that don't apply.
FMCSA doesn't apply. Forget about it. Doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

[JIMNLIN]

my neighbor lady is a hotshoter with a 3500 DRW flatbed and she gave me some numbers for FMCSA regs 571.110 for under 10k tires/wheels/GAWR/door placards and FMCSA reg 571.120 for over 10000 lbs with the same regs and definitions if any one is interested (federal motor vehicle safety standards). We also have the FMCSA 571.3 regs for definitions, GAWR/GVWR/GCWR, that I mentioned in above post. Keep in mind FMCSA regs are a recommendation for our states BUT states are required to be equal or better those regs. These regs were given to her from other commercial operators on those webs I mentioned.
once again I'll say this one more time, check with your state for their interpetation of the new FMCSA regs.
This may tie in to why my tag office refused to give a uprate GVWR indorsment for my wifes '06 chev 1500 CC, we just bought. They say new state regs don't permit uprate GVWR indorsment unless I register the truck for commercial use. Her '06 trucks new title has no GVWR numbers on the line for GVWR anymore. That also ties in with my conservation with that OHP troop captain when he mentioned we use the truck GVWR from the door tag.
JIM
edit: see federal motor vehicle safety standards part 49 sect 567.4 and 567.5 for door placard FMCSA 571 refers to.

[BertP]

I think that Jim has a point. If you look at the FMCSA regs, you will find the following definitions:

Gross axle weight rating or GAWR means the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load–carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire–ground interfaces.

Gross combination weight rating or GCWR means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a combination vehicle.

Gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.

Notice that all of the definitions use the manufacturer's numbers. So, what will happen when a LEO needs to decide if a vehicle is overweight or not? In States and Provinces where private vehicle register their weight, no problem: just use the registered weight of the vehicle. But, what about States and Provinces where there is no registered weight for a vehicle? I can see a LEO interpreting the FMCSA regs to say that in the absence of any other definition, the manufacturer's GVWR as the reference point. Note that I amm not suggesting that that is how it is, just that that is how it may be interpreted.

Bert

[jmramiller]

I guess some people just don't get it. One of the first things I learned in school is that it is impossible to prove a negative. It is only possible to prove what does exist - it is not possible to prove what does not exist. Jim you have failed repeatedly to provide a link or a direct quote to any portion of any regulation to support legal binding of the door sticker. The definition section is just that - definitions. No where in the definition section does it say that the door sticker is legally binding. And last I checked us RVers don't need to fill out any MCS 150. If the same laws apply to non commercial TV's then why are we not required to complete these forms? If anyone is blowing smoke it is you. If this is the way your state interprets the law then surely someone out there has been cited. Where is that person? I would prove that he does not exist but as I have stated earlier that is not possible. But with your connections you should easily be able to prove that person does exist. Post a copy of a citation one of your "friends" issued. You can block out the names - that is not the important thing. The important thing is the reference to the section of code that was violated. And I know you don't care about that because so and so said so and so and that is the only thing that matters to you. What you need to understand is that if you want to have any credibility on this forum then you need to be able to back your claims with something more than "this is the way I am told my state interprets these regs". So Jim, Cowboy Up and at least give us a direct quote from a reg that applies to the topic at hand.

[JIMNLIN]

Wadcutter wrote:
(snip{
So far it only shows you don't really understand what it is you've been posting. It's a clear case of someone not understanding what they're reading or wanting something to fit what they think it says. You have your preconceived belief which contradicts with the facts and that is clouding your ability to understand the facts. And what shows that you are clearly confused about what you are posting you keep referring to FMCSA and trying to link it to registration and weights. FMCSA doesn't have anything to do with registration requirements. You are reading the parts about weights applying to FMCSA and jumping to the erroneous conclusion that somehow what makes FMCSA apply also applies to registration. It doesn't. 2 completely separate acts. One is not related to the other.
Reread jmramiller's last post.
I don't know why I even bother responding to these posts.

your blowin' smoke. My state uses FMCSA rules for guidence for licensing and weight enforcement. If you have read my many posts on this subject I keep saying, see your state for their interpetation and how they enforce FMCSA regs. The first thing any new operator that is getting into a hauling buisness is get a copy of FMCSA regs and read the parts that pertains to his rigs class. Then we go to the state we are registering in and seek their input on compliance for registering and weight enforcement requirements for that class of vehicle.
That OHP troop captain says its a 6 months course for a trooper to go through to be weight certified for enforcement purposes. And I didn't ask for any documentation.
JIM

[grey_eagle]

rshidler wrote:
-snip-
When did our Legislative Branch relinquish their authority to Ford? I must have been napping when CNN reported on this!

Ford isn’t dictating anything to anyone. Maybe a refresher in Civics 101 would be more beneficial than listening to CNN, if in fact that’s where you’re getting your information. i.e.

Legislative Branch delegates to DOT, which in turn delegates to FHSTA whom in turn sets the standards and make the regulations that affect all the mfg’ers and not just Ford.

This site is directly from the US Dot –FHTSA website and is written in plain language.


In addition to the above link read para 17 & 18 which references CFR 49 i.e.
listed as FAQ’s

[JIMNLIN]

wadcutter/jmiller
your both ingnoring those FMCSA rules I've mentioned for under 26000 lb class of vehicles. Part 571.3 clearly is a definition of GAWR/GCWR/GVWR and that link to a MCS-150 application for a USDOT which clearly points to vehicles GVWR/GCWR. Are either of you aware we have a over 10000 lb GVWR class per FMCSA. Find it and read it and check with your state on their interpetation/enforcement. So far neither of you have produced any document stating the vehicles GVWR/GAWR is nothing legal other than your opinions.
I understand full well how my state uses FMCSA regs to implement state licensing and follow those regs for weight enforcement of over 10000 lb vehicles. I full well understand my state uses those definitions mentioned above for commercial and non commercial enforcement. Miller says my state hasn't added GAWR in its own codes. That dot lieutenant and the OHP troop captain say different. Guess who I'm gonna' believe and I didn't even ask them for "where is it documented".
Its apparant neither one of you have ever towed commercial with a 3500 DRW truck, as a example, with a combined tag/cdl/us dot number. I have and the truck GVWR (right off the door tag ) plus the GVWR of the trailer (right of the trailer plates) gives us our combined for tags and that number goes into the application process for usdot number also. No, just like both of you, I don't have any document other than experience and verbal info from other operators and my state LEO on what it takes to comply.
Jmiller says were talking about RVs. Well,it just so happens my state uses both for commercial purposes and non commercial according to my state dot officer and state trooper. Thats enough for me.
edit for adding to above GVWR info is in my state for over 8000 GVWR vehicles vehicles we may raise our GVWR to 15000 max and no I don't have any documentation other than my tag office.

[rshidler]

grey`eagle wrote:
(snip) Yes, I know, it’s been posted many times over that the information on the doorjamb is not legally binding. Ford says it is and that’s what I’ll go by until the wording on their towing guides is changed to specifically say otherwise.

When did our Legislative Branch relinquish their authority to Ford? I must have been napping when CNN reported on this!

[grey_eagle]

Given the arguments above, I for one can only perceive that the information stated above pertains to commercial operations, over the 26K, including the 20k axle limit standard and not the RV class.
However, the word “legally” has been introduced at some point with regard to RV’s and “legally binding limits”

Shown below are several websites where the mfg’ers specially state and give pertinent information on what can be towed with any given combination of truck and trailer.

The way I read the information posted on these websites below; where it states that the “maximum” weight that can be towed, is legally binding on the operator. As I’ve started many times over, "simply because you’re in compliance with one letter of the law, doesn’t mean you in compliance with all letters of the law".

This website lists all the towing guides for about all trucks in the RV class of towing.

This one pertains primarily to the F-250 I currently own. Ford Trucks.
Scroll down to page 25 and you’ll see in bold print what Ford says about weight limits.

Shown on the Dodge website.

The bottom line to this argument is being involved in a serious accident where a possibility of fatalities are involved and there is every intent to litigate the cause and circumstances of the accident.
While the commercial standard for over weight is no where near the maximum for the RV class; some of the weights or so called "no limit criteria" has been exceeded the mfg’ers standards as posted on the door jamb and or limits imposed by the tire or other limiting factors.

While the State Troopers are not likely to get involved in a civil litigation suit; unless subpoenaed by the court; the first thing any experienced attorney will investigate, will be the weight limits for both the TV’s and trailers.

Based on numerous posts in these forums, it appears that in a majority of the states, you can register you truck for about anything you desire. Including weights that get into the standard for commercial operations. However, that sure doesn’t mean that you are in the clear to knowing exceed the limits set forth by the mfg’ers, both for vehicle and tire.

Yes, I know, it’s been posted many times over that the information on the doorjamb is not legally binding. Ford says it is and that’s what I’ll go by until the wording on their towing guides is changed to specifically say otherwise.

[Wadcutter]

JIMNLIN wrote:
.
just a comment for wadcutter. So far all we've seen from your door tag assesment, is your opinion. Show us a document that says the door tag GVWR/GAWR isn't used from our 2500/3500 class truck for combined licensing requirements per FMCSA or my state.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Can't show something that doesn't exist.
BTW, all that I've posted is not "my opinion". It's been from the statutes, including from the feds.
You're the one who say that it does. Show us something that says such. If so then there will be a statute. They don't write statutes which are the negative. So far you haven't provided anything. All those things you've been posting doesn't. So far it only shows you don't really understand what it is you've been posting. It's a clear case of someone not understanding what they're reading or wanting something to fit what they think it says. You have your preconceived belief which contradicts with the facts and that is clouding your ability to understand the facts. And what shows that you are clearly confused about what you are posting you keep referring to FMCSA and trying to link it to registration and weights. FMCSA doesn't have anything to do with registration requirements. You are reading the parts about weights applying to FMCSA and jumping to the erroneous conclusion that somehow what makes FMCSA apply also applies to registration. It doesn't. 2 completely separate acts. One is not related to the other.
Reread jmramiller's last post.
I don't know why I even bother responding to these posts.