Interpretation ID: nht87-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hiroshi Kato -- Assistant Vice President, Technical, WC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/28/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Anonymous (Part 581); 12/1/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H. Nakaya, Mazda, Inc.

TEXT:

Mr. Hiroshi Kato Assistant Vice President, Technical WC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

This responds to your letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you sought my confirmation of a previous interpretation I sent to you. The issue is the classification of a new mini-van for the purposes of our safety and bumper standards. I stated in a july 2 8, 1987 interpretation to your company that, based on the information you had provided, this new mini-van could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the mini-van's chassis cou ld be considered a truck chassis Has based on information you had provided showing that the chassis design and construction Has more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis.

In response to this letter, you sent me another letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you stated that my previous interpretation by have been based on the erroneous belief that you were going to introduce a cargo version of this mini-van into the United States, and that this cargo version would have a chassis that was substantially reinforced as compared with the chassis on a passenger version of this mini-van.

My previous interpretation Has based on the fact that the mini-van you will introduce into the United States is built on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the chassis can properly be characterized as a truck chassis has based on the facts that the chas sis has a heavier-duty rear suspension and longitudinal members and a 25 percent higher gross vehicle weight rating than the sedan version of this vehicle. Assuming that these understandings are accurate, because nothing in your August 3 letter indicates they were inaccurate, the agency's position was accurately expressed in my July 28, 1987 letter to your company.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 3, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is a letter to confirm your response dated July 28, 1987 (attached II) to our letter seeking an interpretation (attached I) as to whether a new mini van will be classified as a "Multi-purpose Passenger Vehicle" for the purposes of the FMVSS and the bumper standards. Because it seems to me that you may misunderstand our statement, I will illustrate our statement and ask your interpretation again as soon as possible.

The component reinforced for commercial vehicle

o rear suspension changed

o rear floorpan and longitudinal members are changed o GM + 300kg

o the flat cargo floor

o the roof raised for cargo

o the end of the cargo floor, no stepped up cross rail

MMC is going to launch Vehicle 3 in U.S. market as MPV. Vehicle 3 & 1 have been sold in Japan as passenger car and Vehicle 2 as van. MMC is asking that, although Vehicle 3 has been sold as wagon in Japan, Vehicle 3 should be classified to be MPV. Because Vehicle 3 has the same chassis and body

(continued)

construction as Vehicle 2 (Van), and Vehicle 2 is developed to withstand the commercial use criteria changing rear suspension, rear floor pan configuration, longitudinal members, GM and roof configuration, etc. from Vehicle l (Sedan). Therefore, Vehicle 3 is considered to have truck chassis...

NHTSA' s understanding

We presume that you misunderstand our statements as follows after reading your response.

However, Vehicle 2 has the same construction as Vehicle 3 and there is no fact that vehicle 2 is substantially reinforced from Vehicle 3 as mentioned before.

MMC's request

Therefore, could you re-examine our statement and give us your interpretation on Vehicle 3's classification as soon as possible. We do believe that Vehicle 3 should be classified as an MPV because Vehicle 3 has the truck chassis although MMC is responsib le for the proof that this Vehicle 3 has a truck chassis.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (313) 355-5444.

Sincerely yours,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Hiroshi Kato

HK/xsg Assistant Vice President, Technical Attached: I: MMC Services letter to NHTSA II: NHTSA's response letter

See 7/28/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Anonymous.