Interpretation ID: babcock1.ztv

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This is in reply to your letter of July 1, 2003, relating to my response of May 2, 2003 to a question you asked regarding possible preemption of a California statute relating to the distance between the front turn signal lamp and fog lamps (California Title 13, Section 691) by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108.

In brief, fog lamps are not required items of lighting equipment under FMVSS No. 108. Thus, if California were to preclude fog lamps, FMVSS No. 108 would not preempt such an action. Similarly, California can address the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps. However, California could not regulate fog lamps in a manner that would be inconsistent with the functioning of front turn signal lamps, which we do regulate. Based on available information, we concluded that FMVSS No. 108 did not preempt the California statute.

You have expressed concern that your inquiry did not provide the full scope and context of your questions, and requested a further interpretation. You also requested our confirmation that "the California requirements would be preempted should that state fail to waive the inconsistent portions of its requirements in favor of FMVSS 108." We have been provided a copy of a letter sent to you on July 11, 2003, by the Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP) in reply to your letter to it of July 1, 2003 "regarding the spacing required between turn signal lamps and other forward-facing lighting devices." The CHP concluded that "the spacing requirements contained in 13 CCR for turn signal lamps in relation to fog lamps and passing lamps are, therefore, not identical to those contained in FMVSS 108." The CHP then cited California Vehicle Code (VC) Section 26103(b) which states, in effect, that the provisions of FMVSS No. 108 covering the same aspect of performance shall prevail over those that California has adopted. Then, the CHP concluded that "Any device complying with the FMVSS, with respect to any aspect of performance prescribed by the FMVSS, but in conflict with the VC or 13 CCR, is lawful in this state."

As a result of its conclusion, the CHP informed you that "turn signal lamps may be mounted closer to fog lamps and driving lamps than specified in 13 CCR, provided they comply with all requirements contained in FMVSS No. 108," and that it "accepts the manufacturers certification regarding compliance with the FMVSS . . . ."

CHPs letter indicates to us that it has acceded to Hyundais request for a favorable interpretation of California law relating to the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps. In a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on August 8, 2003, you confirmed that you interpret CHPs letter as resolving any issue you may have had with the State relating to the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps. Therefore, we regard your request of July 1 for a further interpretation as mooted by CHPs letter of July 11.

Different fact situations may arise in the future in which you would like us to provide an opinion on the relationship between California law and FMVSS No. 108 as it affects Hyundai, and we would be willing to consider them at that time.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.8/12/03