Interpretation ID: 77-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have acknowledged receipt of Chrysler Corporation's November 29 and December 20, 1976, petitions for rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" that appears in 49 CFR 571.3. Copies of these petitions are attached.

The November 29 petition requests an amendment to reflect the interpretation that appeared in your July 16, 1976, letter to Jeep Corporation (copy attached). That interpretation, you will recall, was: "[the] weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use . . . is not included in [unloaded vehicle weight]." I recommend that the November 29 petition be granted. The requested amendment of the definition can be issued as an interpretive amendment, without a prior notice of proposed rulemaking. Incidentally, such an amendment does not impinge on the agency's long-standing position that a motor vehicle is expected to comply with all applicable standards in the form in which it actually rolls off the dealer's lot, regardless of the accessories and optional equipment with which it is equipped. Instead, it affects the meaning of compliance, by implicitly requiring the agency to remove from the vehicle certain accessories -- which it has already determined ought not to be considered a part of the vehicle -- before compliance testing.

The December 20 petition requests a much more substantial amendment of the definition. Please note that, to the extent that it would affect Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, the agency is constrained by the Congressional ratification of that standard in Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. The requested amendment, which appears as if it would significantly reduce amendment does not impinge on the agency's long-standing position that a motor vehicle is expected to comply with all applicable standards in the form in which it actually rolls off the dealer's lot, regardless of the accessories and optional equipment with which it is equipped. Instead, it affects the meaning of compliance, by implicitly requiring the agency to remove from the vehicle certain accessories -- which it has already determined ought not to be considered as part of the vehicle -- before compliance testing.

The December 20 petition requests a much more substantial amendment of the definition. Please note that, to the extent that it would affect standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, the agency is constrained by the Congressional ratification of that standard in Section 10a of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. The requested amendment, which appears as if it would significantly reduce the severity of the standard's crash tests, could not be issued without an affirmative agency finding that it would not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.

Please advise me of your recommendations on these petitions so that a response may be prepared.