Interpretation ID: aiam4398
Assistant Vice President
Technical
MMC Services
Inc.
3000 Town Center
Suite 1960
Southfield
MI 48075;
Dear Mr. Kato: This responds to your letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you sough 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 28, 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 could be considered a truck chassis was based on information you had provided showing that the chassis design and construction was 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 may have been based on the erroneous belief that you were going to introduce a cargo version of this mini-van in to 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 was based on the fact that the mini-van yo 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 was based on the facts that the chassis 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