Interpretation ID: 86-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq. Vice President and General Counsel Hyundai Motor America 7373 Hunt Avenue Garden Grove, CA 92642-2669

Dear Mr. O'Neill:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company of Korea (HMC)' requesting clarification of how the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would affect a manufacturer whose vehicles are distributed in the United States by two separate entities. I regret the delay in answering your letter.

You explained that vehicles manufactured by HMC are currently imported and distributed i the United States by Hyundai Motor America. However, in February 1987, HMC will manufacture 30,000 vehicles for distribution by Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. (Mitsubishi) to be sold under the Mitsubishi trademark. You asked if the vehicles sold by HMC to Hyumdai Motor America and Mitsubishi must separately comply with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208.

During the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirement, each manufacturer is required to certify that a certain percentage of its vehicles meet thy automatic restraint requirement. For example, for the period September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987, a manufacturer must equip 10 percent of its vehicles with automatic restraints. On March 21, 1986, NHTSA adopted a final rule which affects how a vehicle manufactured by one company and sold by another is to be counted for the purposes of the phase-in. The rule permits manufacturers to determine by contract in whose fleet the vehicle would be counted. Thus, for example, HMC could provide by contract with Mitsubishi America that all of the vehicles HMC manufactures for Mitsubishi are to be counted as a part of HMC's fleet. Thus, under that contract, HMC would have to count all the vehicles it manufactures for sale to Hyundai Motor America and to Mitsubishi and ensure that 10 percent of that total are equipped with automatic restraints during the first year of the phase-in.

In the absence of a contract, NHTSA's final rule of March 21, 1986, adopted several rules of attribution. The one relevant to your situation is that a vehicle imported into the United States is attribute to its importer. Thus, in the absence of a contract between HMC and Mitsubishi, the vehicles imported by Mitsubishi from HMC would be counted in Mitsubishi's fleet and 10 percent of Mitsubishi's total fleet would have to have automatic restraints.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 26, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I am writing on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company of Korea ("HMC"). We request clarification of 49 CFR Section 571.208 as it relates to a manufacturer whose vehicles are distributed in the United States by two separate entities.

At present, motor vehicles manufactured by HMC are imported and distributed in the United States by Hyundai Motor America, a wholly owned subsidiary of HMC. Commencing in February, 1987, HMC will manufacture 30,000 motor vehicles for distribution by Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. ("Mitsubishi America") under the Mitsubishi trademark. The vehicles sold to Mitsubishi America, however, will be substantially identical to the Hyundai Excel already being sold by Hyundai Motor America, except for some cosmetic differences, and will have HMC's own certification of compliance affixed to vehicles.

HMC requests your interpretation of FMVSS 208 as applies to Hyundai vehicles sold by both Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America. Based on our own analysis, and after some informal preliminary discussions with NHTSA's Legal Department, HMC believes that Hyundai vehicles sold by HMC to Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America must separately con- form to FMVSS 208. Thus, for example, HMC believes that FMVSS 208 requires that 10% of 1987 model Hyundai vehicles sold by Hyundai Motor America and 10% of 1987 model Hyunlai vehicles sold to Mitsubishi America must each contain passive restraint systems.

Please advise to the proper interpretation of FMVSS 208 as it applies to Hyundai vehicles sold to Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America.

Very truly yours,

Finbarr J. O'Niell Vice President and General Counsel

FJO'N/dd