Interpretation ID: 1983-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda Inc. -- H. Nakaya

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding the classification of certain hypothetical mini-van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pan geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.

Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger carrying volume (see, e.g., 49 CFR part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (In the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meets the agency's "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MPV is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a "truck chassis." The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into an MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.

The floor pan differences mentioned in your first question do not appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same "chassis," since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.

Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs on whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.)

Your third question involves the significance of the relative sales levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a "truck chassis," with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.

If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 13 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Councel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Sreet, S .W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt :

A great deal of confusion exists in the automotive industry concerning the precise classification of 'mini-vans'. Specifically, these vehicles could be classified as passenger vehicles, multipurpose vehicles (MPV), or light-duty trucks (LDT), depending on the criteria applied. Mazda (North America), Inc. is interested in this subject and has a number of items that have not been satisfied by existing definitions.

Please examine the following questions and respond to relevant safety compliance implications, if any.

1. Existing standards (MVSS ? 571.3 (b)) indicate the criteria for a multipurpose vehicle as being 'constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road use'. Assuming the original truck is of unibody construction --a) Is the same chassis considered in the modification of the floor pan from LDT to MPV? (See Sketch 1).

b) What impact would floor pan geometry modification from the truck versions to the MPV version have on MPV classification, assuming identical suspension, steering and driveline components?

c) Can a common floor pan be used for both the truck version and the MPV version, with the addition of a flat platform in the truck version --

1) Bolted in place (removable)?

2) Welded in place (permanent)? (See Sketch 2).

2. Assuming the original truck is of unibody construction, what influence does the rear seating design have on MPV classification if the additional seating configurations are --

a) Pedestal assemblies bolted to the floor pan that when removed result in a flat surface? (See Sketch 3).

b) Attached seat cushion and back assemblies that fold forward together at a single pivot with respect to the floor pan result in a flat surface? (See sketch 4).

c) Separate seat cushion and back assemblies that fold forward sequentially at two pivot points resulting in a flat surface? (See Sketch 5).

d) Fold down seat backs attached at the pivot point to a stationary seat cushion resulting in a flat surface? (See Sketch 6).

3. If a MPV classification is desired as 'derived' from a truck chassis --

a) Assuming the engineering, design, tooling, testing, etc. is completed for the truck version, must the truck version be built at al1 to insure MPV classification?

b) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, can the MPV version be introduced first followed by a later truck version introduction?

c) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, can the truck and MPV be introduced simultaneously?

d) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, must the truck be introduced in the United States market to insure MPV classification?

e) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, does the proportion of truck versus MPV versions sold influence the MPV classification if --

1) Both versions are sold in the United States?

2) Only the MPV version is sold in the United States?

Thank you for your help in this important matter.

Very truly yours,

H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc:Mr. R. Fairchild

INSERT GRAPH