Interpretation ID: 77-2.34
TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA
DATE: 05/16/77
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA
TO: Chrysler Corporation
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT: This responds to your November 29 and December 20, 1976, petitions for rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grants your November 29 petition for rulemaking and denies your December 20 petition.
The NHTSA, in a letter of interpretation to the Jeep Corporation, stated that "unloaded vehicle weight" does not include the weight of accessories ordinarily removed when they are not in use. Your November 29 petition for rulemaking suggests that we formally incorporate this interpretation into the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" for purposes of clarity. The agency agrees that this change should be made. Accordingly, we intend to commence rulemaking in response to your petition.
Your December 20, 1976, petition amended your November 29, 1976, petition by suggesting that the agency permit barrier testing of specified vehicles at the lesser of the unloaded vehicle weight or 5,500 pounds. We have determined that this proposal would establish arbitrary weights for vehicles undergoing compliance testing which could result in vehicles being subjected to crash tests in a condition which is not representative of their actual on-road condition. Your suggested change in the definition could thus result in a reduction in the effectiveness of some motor vehicle safety standards. In Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, the Congress mandated that the agency not diminish the level of safety established at that time in the standard. Your proposal, if implemented, could violate that Congressional mandate since vehicles could be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight. Therefore, the recommendations advanced in your December 20 petition are denied to the extent that they differ from those originally proposed in your November 29 petition.
SINCERELY,
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
December 20, 1976
Mr. John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Re: Petition for Amendment Definition of "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" Part 571 - Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
A number of petitions have been submitted to the NHTSA requesting a delay in the effective date of the amended requirements of MVSS 212 - Windshield Mounting as they apply to light duty multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.
Chrysler Corporation supports those requests and urges the Administrator to grant this delay.
We believe, however, that the requested delay in the effective date of Standard 212 is only a part of a much broader issue that must be addressed by the NHTSA with respect to special purpose vehicles. These vehicles usually are completed by independent body builders who may install any one of a number of different types of bodies to meet the needs of the final purchaser, and generally are classified as vehicles manufactured in two or more stages for purposes of the safety regulations. In many cases very specialized bodies are added to produce such vehicles as wreckers, hydraulic aerial ladder trucks, mechanical road service trucks, etc. Most of these bodies, by their very nature, have essentially no load carrying capability. On the other hand, because of their heavy weight, the addition of these bodies will cause the unloaded vehicle weight to be very close to its gross vehicle weight rating. This situation is exemplified by the following comparison of weights for our D300 pickup truck and a D300 chassis-cab with a utility body and hydraulic aerial ladder.
Gross Unloaded Vehicle Chassis Body Vehicle Weight Truck Weight Weight Weight Rating D300 Pickup 4309 lbs. 458 lbs. 4767 lbs. 10,000 D300 Chassis-Cab with Utility Body 4309 lbs. 3481 lbs. 7800 lbs. 10,000 and Hydraulic Aerial Ladder
Standard 212, as well as Standards 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion and 301 - Fuel System Integrity, currently requires the barrier impact testing of completed light duty trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles at essentially their unloaded vehicle weight. Recognizing that the forces generated in a barrier impact test are directly proportional to vehicle weight, it is obvious that the requirements are much more severe for vehicles equipped with heavier specialized bodies than for the standard production base vehicles, even though both types may be operated on the highway at the same overall vehicle weight.
Previous industry responses to notices of proposed rulemaking on MVSS 301, Docket 70-20, discussed in detail the reasons why it would be more reasonable and practical to conduct barrier impact tests on light duty trucks, MPV's, and buses at their unloaded vehicle weight. It was pointed out that while conducting these tests at the GVWR may simulate a very small number of severe accidents, the overall ramifications of such a requirement, when viewed in terms of total highway injury reduction, do not support such a severe test. Even though these vehicles are at times loaded to their maximum capacity, the type of accident circumstances encountered and the frequent unloaded or partially loaded usage of light duty trucks, MPV's, and buses hardly justifies a fully loaded fixed barrier collision test. Moreover, the structural changes required to increase the overall stiffness so that a fully loaded vehicle might comply would tend to make it a "battering ram". We estimate that the overall stiffness of a 10,000 lb. GVWR truck may have to be increased 2.25 times. This may have the effect of subjecting vehicle occupants to higher deceleration loadings, and in fact may increase the risk of injury to occupants in other vehicles involved in vehicle to vehicle collisions. In view of these facts and the possible
adverse effects on highway safety, the NHTSA determined that testing these vehicles at theirunloaded vehicle weight would produce a more reasonable and practical test condition. Because of the way the cited standards are written, however, this rationale is not applied to special purpose vehicles which still must be tested at a weight very close to their GVWR.
Unless this problem is corrected in the various standards cited, the effect in many cases will be to impose a real hardship on the many small body manufacturers who must certify that the vehicles they complete meet all of the applicable safety requirements. The alternative is for the users of these special purpose vehicles to purchase vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs. which are not required to meet these safety provisions, are much more expensive - $ 1,000 to $ 2,000 more, and are less fuel efficient. No useful purpose would be served by forcing users to purchase larger, more expensive vehicles which are not covered by these standards. We believe the NHTSA should recognize the problem created by the standards as written with respect to special purpose light duty vehicles, and should amend the regulation to allow their testing at a more reasonable test weight approximately equal to their pickup truck, van, or other vehicle counterpart.
One way to accomplish the above would be to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" by establishing a maximum unloaded vehicle weight for purposes of conducting barrier impact tests on special purpose vehicles which are derived from trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. This approach would allow vehicles equipped with specialized bodies to be tested at the same weight used for testing the high volume pickup trucks and vans from which these vehicles are derived. Most special purpose vehicles will have a base vehicle counterpart and will fall under this category. For those few which may not, we recommend that an upper limit of 5,500 lbs. be established. In our opinion this is a reasonable alternative limit since practically all light duty production completed trucks and vans have an "unloaded vehicle weight" of less than 5,500 lbs. On this basis Chrysler Corporation petitions the Administrator to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" to that show below. We also have included the change in the definition which we requested in our petition for amendment dated November 29, 1976, copy attached.
"Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. For purposes of barrier impact testing special purpose vehicles which are derived from multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less, the unloaded vehicle weight shall be either that of the completed comparable model vehicle from which the special purpose vehicle is derived or 5,500 lbs., whichever is less.
In our opinion the adoption of this definition is in the public interest and would not depreciate motor vehicle safety.
S. L. TERRY Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
November 29, 1976
John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Re: Petition for Amendment Definition of "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
Chrysler Corporation recently became aware of the NHTSA's July 16, 1976 response to Jeep Corporation's petition requesting that MVSS 301 - Fuel System Integrity be amended to allow the removal of all types of work-performing accessories prior to conducting the required impact tests. The response denied Jeep's petitions, but at the same time provided an interpretation permitting the removal of certain work-performing accessories. This interpretation is of significant concern to us.
For several years we have been marketing a light duty, four-wheel drive truck equipped with a factory-installed snow plow. The continued production of this vehicle after September 1, 1976 necessitates that it comply with the applicable requirements of MVSS 301. Our certification test program for this model vehicle was based on several previous NHTSA interpretations on the testing of vehicles equipped with optional work performing accessories. On February 9, 1976 the NHTSA responded to an earlier Jeep Corporation petition regarding work-performing equipment by stating, "As a general matter, the NHTSA has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept an optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with the component installed" (underlined for emphasis). Similar responses provided to General Motors on March 1, 1976 and to Chrysler Corporation on August 27, 1976 also clearly indicated that vehicles must be capable of meeting the requirements of MVSS 301 when equipped with whatever optional equipment is installed on the vehicle at the time of sale. Accordingly, our compliance tests were conducted on this model vehicle with the snow plow blade installed.
Now, however, the NHTSA has provided a new and substantially different interpretation of these same requirements by stating to Jeep Corporation:
"The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the 'weight of a vehicle'. Consequently, accessories in this latter group [snow plow, spreaders, and tow bars] would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75."
Under this new interpretation vehicles equipped with snow plows would be tested with the blade removed rather than with it installed as required by the NHTSA's previous interpretation. This is a substantive change in the requirements which could materially affect compliance with MVSS 301.
Rather than making this substantive change by interpretation, we believe the new provisions should be incorporated in the basic regulations. Specifically, we request that the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" be amended so that the interpretation is clearly recognized as part of MVSS 301 as well as any other standards that involve testing at unloaded vehicle weight. To accomplish this we recommend that consideration be given to adopting the following new definition for "unloaded vehicle weight": "Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use.
S. L. TERRY Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs