Interpretation ID: nht75-4.11

DATE: 09/03/75

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

TO: Crane & Excavator Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 28, 1975, letter asking whether the unloaded vehicle weight of a mobile crane carrier would include components that are essential to its specialized function but are not removed for transit purposes. You also suggest alternative wording for a particular exclusion criterion proposed for mobile crane carriers and similar vehicles under Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

I have enclosed a copy of a recent notice that amends Standard No. 121. The preamble to the notice deals with the issues you have raised and should make clear to you that vehicle components are not generally considered part of the rated cargo capacity and therefore would not be subtracted from a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating to determine the unloaded vehicle weight.

YOURS TRULY,

FMC CORPORATION Crane & Excavator Division

July 28, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Council Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: Your letter to me of July 2, 1975: N40-30 (TWH)

Thanks for the referenced letter of interpretation as requested by me on June 23, 1975.

I fully realize that NHTSA definition of GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) does not require that the GVWR be the sum of the vehicles GAWR but must not exceed the sum of the vehicle GAWR's.

Your referenced letter states "Unloaded vehicle weight will normally be the GVWR of a vehicle minus its rated cargo load and its assigned occupant weight (at least 150 lbs.). The rated cargo load would not include the weight of portions of a vehicle which are essential to its specialized function but are removed in accordance with State regulation for transit purposes".

Therefore, I assume the following: "The rated cargo load would not include the weight of portions of a vehicle which are essential to its specialized function but are not removed in accordance with State regulation for transit purposes".

Please advise me if my assumption is correct.

To more fully allow our customers to meet the maximum number of State and local regulations it is necessary that our GVWR be a summation of the vehicle GAWR's. Therefore, few of our truck cranes will fall within the 95% or more of GVWR.

The regulation would be more meaningful and specific if you deleted "An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95% of the vehicle GVWR" and replaced it with "An unloaded vehicle weight whose cargo portion is less than 5% of the vehicle GVWR". I recommend this change.

Please advise me if my assumption is correct and your comments on my recommendation.

H. Ray Cozad, Chief Engineer