Interpretation ID: nht87-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 12/1/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H. Nakaya, Mazda, Inc.

TEXT: Dear

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation as to whether a new mini-van you will introduce into the United States would be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581). In a June 5, 1987, phone conversation between members of my staff and your staff, it has stated that this interpretation should not address the question of how this vehicle would be classified for purposes of the avera ge fuel economy standards. You stated in your letter your opinion that this new mini-van should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis.

Your opinion was based on the fact that both passenger and cargo versions of this mini-van have already been sold in Japan. You stated that the cargo version of the mini-van has a chassis that is substantially reinforced from the chassis used in the pass enger version of this mini-van. The version of the vehicle you will offer for sale in the United States will be a passenger version of the vehicle, but will use the chassis offered on the Japanese cargo version of this vehicle. Apparently, you do not pla n to offer any cargo versions of this vehicle for sale in the United States. However, you believe that the chassis that will be offered on the United States version of this mini-van is a truck chassis, and this should not result in the United States vers ion this vehicle being classified as a multipurpose vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the bumper standard.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that both the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S. C. 1915(c)), with respect to the bumper standard, place the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. This agency may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify a vehicle for the purpose s of these standards. It is important for the manufacturer to be aware that these tentative statements are based entirely on the information provided to the agency by the manufacturer, and the tentative conclusions may change after the agency has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself.

A December 1, 1983, letter to Mr. Nakaya discusses how we would consider and apply the various factors to determine whether a vehicle should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle by virtue of being constructed on a truck chassis. A copy of th at letter is enclosed for your information. Our position has not changed since this 1983 letter.

To briefly summarize the letter, the fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one 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 ch assis has truck attributes. This further evidence might consist of information showing the chassis designed to be more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis, which you stated is the case for the chassis on this new vehicle. The 1983 letter makes clear that NHTSA will examine the classification of your new vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle more carefully than other such classifications, since no truck version of this vehicle will be offered for s ale in the United States. However, at that time and assuming that your statements about the reinforcement of the chassis are accurately it appears to us that this vehicle is constructed on a truck chassis. Accordingly, the vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the bumper and safety standards. The version of this letter that has been placed in our public docket, together with your letter to me, have all information identifying you and your company deleted therefrom. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

(see 12/1/83 NHTSA letter to Mazda, Inc.)

12/22/86

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter serves to request an interpretation of Part 571.3 Definitions; "Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (MPV)" and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act Pub.L. 92-513 USC 1901-1991.

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) plans to introduce a Colt/Mirage Station Wagon in the 1988 model year. We request that NHTSA treat our letter as confidential since the disclosure of our future product plans could cause serious competitive harm. MMC b elieves this wagon should be classified as a MPV for the following reasons:

The Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is a small wagon which will be identical to the Mirage Van sold in the Japanese market in the following respects:

The Mirage Van is a commercial vehicle and has a truck chassis as follows:

(1) The chassis of the Mirage Van is reinforced from that of the Mirage Sedan for commerical use in the Japanese market.

The components reinforced include the following: - The rear suspension is changed from independent to rigid.

- The rear floow pan and longitudinal members are changed and strengthened for commercial load support.

(2) As the result of such reinforcement, the gross vehicle weight of the Mirage Van in the Japanese market increases 300kg as follows:

Mirage Van 1525kg

Mirage Sedan 1225kkg

(5) the Mirage Van has other commercial features as follows:

- The flat cargo floor extends from the folded rear seat back to the tailgate.

- The end of the cargo floor has no stepped up crossrail. This makes loading and unloading of cargo convenient.

- The roof is raised 40mm from the sedan for cargo capacity.

Since the chassis of Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is the same as that of the Mirage Van, we believe the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon has a truck chassis and can be considered a MPV.

Please inform us in a timely manner whether our interpreatation is correct.

If you have any question, please contact me or Hiroshi Kato at (313) 353-5444.

Sincerely,