ID: 07-004114as

ID: aiam2353

Dear Mr. Brown: This is in response to Jeep Corporation's March 9, 1976, petition fo rulemaking as supplemented by its letter of April 1, 1976. The petition requested an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, that would add the following sentence at the end of S7.1.6(b):; >>>For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does no include the weight of work-performing accessories.<<<; The supplement to the petition included a list of 15 examples of suc work-performing accessories. The amendment would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to remove these accessories before performing compliance testing pursuant to the standard.; In Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments o 1974, (15 U.S.C. 1392 note), Congress directed that the fuel system integrity standard take effect in the form in which it had been most recently published. Conditions for amending the standard were specified in Section 108(b) as follows:; >>>*Amendment or Repeal of Standard*.--The Secretary may amend th standard described in subsection (a) in order to correct technical errors in the standard, and may amend or repeal such standard if he determines such amendment or repeal will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.<<<; The practical result of the amendment requested by Jeep would be tha certain vehicles would not, as is presently specified, be required to conform to the standard in the form in which they are actually delivered to purchasers and used on the highways. In fact, the presence of work-performing accessories could seriously degrade a vehicle's performance in the standard's barrier crash tests. We therefore cannot conclude that the requested amendment 'will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.' Furthermore, the amendment goes beyond the mere correction of technical errors in the standard. Consequently, Jeep's petition must be and is hereby denied.; Despite this denial, however, the NHTSA interprets the term 'unloade vehicle weight' in a manner that provides some of the relief that Jeep has requested. The term is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as follows:; >>>'Unloaded vehicle weight' means the weight of a vehicle with maximu capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.<<<; The 'weight of a vehicle' includes the weight of those accessories tha are installed on a vehicle before delivery and are not ordinarily removed. Among such accessories are the following:; >>>air bag suspension systems, draw bars, headlamp and radiato protectors, helper-springs, hitches, pintle hooks, power take-offs, push bumpers, step bumpers and side steps, tire carriers, wreckers<<<; The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the 'weight of a vehicle'. Consequently, accessories in this latter group would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301- 75. Among these are the following:; >>>snow plows, spreaders, tow bars<<< Categorization of winches, the remaining accessory that you hav listed, depends on the nature of the particular winch. One that is generally removed only when its presence interferes with other vehicle functions would be included in the evaluation of 'unloaded vehicle weight'. A portable winch that is ordinarily removed after use, however, would not be included in that evaluation.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: GFES04-2-000636

The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4202

Dear Congressman Duncan:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Jon Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer is interested in marketing a new product and asks whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) permit flashing stop lamps. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motors and new motor vehicle equipment, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.The relevant section of that standard reads as follows:

"S5.5.10 The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:


(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning" [emphasis added].

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 mandates that all lamps be steady burning, unless otherwise permitted. In the present case, stop lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c). Accordingly, stop lamps must be steady burning and cannot be flashing.

We believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. The information currently provided by signal lamps, such as stop lamps, is well understood by the driving public, is instantly recognized and unambiguously informative.

While we recognize that a new idea for the operation of signal lighting might improve safety, we have taken the position that, given the safety benefits associated with the standardized operation and meaning of required lighting, the burden is on the proponents of a new signaling idea to demonstrate that the use of the new idea would yield a positive safety benefit large enough to more than offset the adverse safety effects of giving up the standardized operation and meaning of signal lights. We have enclosed a copy of a November 4, 1998, Federal Register notice which fully explains our policies concerning evaluating new signal lighting ideas.

In his letter to your office, Mr. Schaffer mentioned a Tennessee law permitting flashing stop lamps on motorcycles.For your reference, enclosed please find our January 14, 2004, letter to the manager of City of Memphis Motor Vehicle Inspection Bureau, in which we inform him that FMVSS No. 108 does not permit flashing stop lamps on motorcycles.

With respect to Mr. Schaffers question about Federal preemption of State laws, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) provides in pertinent part:

"Preemption. When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter."

This means that, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State cannot authorize flashing stop lamps since the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prohibits such lighting devices.

We further note that installation of a non-steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after the initial sale is subject to the restrictions of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Depending on the circumstances, installation of a non-steady burning lamp after the initial sale of a vehicle could be viewed as a violation of this "make inoperative" provision.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact Stephen Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization,at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.2/6/04

ID: nht79-2.43

DATE: 12/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 21, 1979, pointing out discrepancies in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as published in the Code of Federal Regulations and as published in "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and Regulations."

You are correct that the version of S4.1.5 appearing in "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" erroneously incorporates the paragraph of the Federal Register amendment notice finding that good cause had been shown for an immediate effective date. The error does not appear, however, in the official version of Standard No. 108 which appears in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The footnote reference to "S4.4.2" and the reference to "S3.1" in the interpretation do appear, however, in the Code of Federal Regulations. Originally, there was a paragraph S4.4.2 prescribing the testing sequence of combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers, referenced by footnotes in Tables I and III. As you may recall, there was a Standard No. 108a scheduled to become effective on January 1, 1973, which omitted S4.4.2 with its footnote reference, and added detailed performance and testing requirements for flashers under a new paragraph, S4.6. When Standard No. 108a was revoked, S4.4.2 was never reinstated as a requirement, though the footnote references to it still appear in Tables I and III as you have noticed.

With respect to the reference to "S3.1" appearing in Note 2 to Standard No. 108 in the Code of Federal Regulations, this is the S3 which appeared in the December 16, 1967, version of

Standard No. 108 cited by the Note. When Standard No. 108 was amended effective January 1, 1972, S3.1 became S4.1. Thus, the continued reference to S3.1, though confusing, is correct in its context.

Your final comment is that the amendments to Tables I and III, affecting headlamps, as published on July 27, 1978, have not been picked up by the agency's publication "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations." You are correct. We hope that recent steps taken by this agency will end the problems that have been experienced with this publication. However, I must emphasize that the only legal version of Standard No. 108 is that appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations, currently revised as of October 1, 1978, plus amendments and corrections published in the Federal Register since that date.

We appreciate your calling these mistakes to our attention. Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 21, 1979

F. Berndt, Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Subject: Discrepancies in Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

Upon recent review of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, we have found a few discrepancies between the Standard as published in the Federal Register and as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations compilation.

The Federal Register of June 15, 1978, amended Section S4.1.5. There was a paragraph printed after Section S4.1.5 which we believe was not intended to be part of the Standard; however, the compilation has this paragraph included as part of the Standard. Are we correct in assuming that this paragraph is not part of the Standard?

The Federal Register of July 27, 1978, amended the Table I headlamp requirements. The compilation does not reflect this amendment.

Table I of the compilation is footnoted to "See S4.4.2"; however, there is no Section S4.4.2 in the compilation. The reprinted Standard in the Federal Register of August 23, 1976, also has the same mistake. What is the correct footnote?

The second paragraph under "Interpretation", following Section S5.2, in both the compilation and the Federal Register of August 23, 1976, refers to paragraph S3.1; however, there is no such paragraph in either document. What is the correct reference?

We trust that you will have these areas reviewed and advise us of your findings. We have attached the appropriate pages from the compilation and the Federal Register for your reference.

Very truly yours, MACK TRUCKS, INC.;

Thomas F. Brown -- Executive Engineer-Vehicle Regulations and Standards

Attach.

ID: aiam2432

Dear Mr. Gaines: This is in response to your letter of August 3, 1976, requestin information concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulation of motor-driven cycles (moped) and in amplification of the telephone conversation between you and Mr. Schwartz of this office. We are sorry for the delay in our response, but your letter was misdirected.; The NHTSA has authority to regulate mopeds under two statutes. th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle safety Act (15 U.S.C. 11381, et seq.) authorizes the NHTSA to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles. Section 102(5) (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) of the Act defines a 'manufacturer' of a motor vehicle to include 'any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' In those instances where the foreign manufacturer itself has not complied, the importer would therefore be responsible for the compliance of the vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and with the requirements imposed on manufacturers.; The principal standards and regulations applying to the manufacture an sale of motorcycles, of which the motor-driven cycle is a subcategory, can be found in the following sections of the Code of Federal Regulations:; >>>49 CFR Part 551 - Procedural Rules 49 CFR Part 566 - Manufacturer Identification 49 CFR Part 567 - Certification 49 CFR 571.106 - Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses 49 CFR 571.108 - Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, an associated equipment; 49 CFR 571.112 - Standard No. 112, Headlamp concealment devices 49 CFR 571.116 - Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids 49 CFR 119 - Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic tires for vehicles othe than passenger cars; 49 CFR 571.122 - Standard No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems 49 CFR 571.123 - Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays 49 CFR 571.205 - Standard No. 205, Glazing materials 49 CFR Part 573 - Defective Reports 49 CFR Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping 49 CFR Part 575 - Consumer Information Regulation 49 CFR Part 576 - Record Retention 49 CFR Part 577 - Defect Notification<<< Generally, a moped must meet requirements which apply to motorcycle except when a provision of a standard sets forth a lesser requirement for motor-driven cycles. Currently, these lesser requirements are found in Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard Nos. 108, 122, and 123 (49 CFR 571.108, 571.122, and 571.123).; The NHTSA also has the authority to regulate the operation of moped under the provision of the Highway Safety Act (23 U.S.C. 401, et seq.). This legislation provides that each State shall have a highway Safety program designed to reduce traffic accidents and deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom. Each State program shall be in accordance with uniform standards promulgated by the NHTSA. The NHTSA has not yet used its authority to issue standards regulating moped licensing, inspection, insurance, or other highway safety program areas related to moped operation and use. Many States, however, have established their own requirements.; The NHTSA on November 28, 1975, published a notice in the *Federa Register* requesting comments from the public concerning the safety aspects of motorized bicycles. We are currently reviewing the comments which have been submitted, but have reached no decision to initiate rulemaking or to issue a directive to regulate mopeds in the highway safety program area. No hearings have been held relative to mopeds, but the written comments to the docket are available at a cost of 25 cents for the first page and 5 cents for each page thereafter. Information may be obtained by writing to:; >>>Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5108 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590<<< and referring to Docket Number 75-29. I trust this information is helpful. Should you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 20180.ztv

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4402

Dear Senator Hatch:

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1999, requesting our advice on "existing law regarding motor vehicle lighting and how that law affects a recent invention," which is described as an "enhanced motor vehicle warning system" ("the System").

Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One of these standards prescribes performance requirements for both original and replacement motor vehicle lighting equipment, 49 CFR 571.108, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicles to be manufactured in accordance with its requirements and prohibitions.

The System works as follows. When a vehicle's horn is sounded, the System also flashes the vehicle's headlamp upper beams and its backup lamp or lamps. As you point out, paragraph S5.5.10(b) of Standard No. 108 allows the headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes. However, as you also point out, S5.5.10(d) states that all other lamps shall be steady burning, and you conclude that the System would appear to violate this clause. You have asked for "an official interpretation of the rule to determine if the rear lamps, when connected to this device, would violate (d)."

Your interpretation is correct; S5.5.10(d) does not allow the backup lamp or lamps to flash when in use, and the System is not permissible because it flashes the backup lamps.

S5.5.10(a) specifies that hazard warning system lamps be wired to flash. One of your staff members discussed with us whether the System would be allowable were it modified to operate through the hazard warning system, which flashes in normal operation when activated by the driver, rather than through the backup lamps, which do not flash in use. The acceptability of such a

Standard No. 108. This paragraph prohibits the installation of additional equipment on a vehicle if it would "impair the effectiveness" of lighting equipment required by the standard. In recent years, we have come to the conclusion that use of required lighting equipment for other than its original purpose may compromise and reduce its safety effectiveness. As we said in 1996,

It is important that the integrity of the required signal lamps be maintained, and that auxiliary signal lamps not detract attention from the messages that the required signal lamps are sending. A vehicle signaling system must be as simple and as unambiguous as possible to others who share the roadway if traffic is to proceed in a safe and orderly fashion. (61 FR 65516)

We believe that a hazard warning system should not be used for the auxiliary purpose of providing an optical warning when the horn is sounded, since such a warning bears no relationship to the original purpose of a hazard warning signal and thus could create confusion about the meaning of the hazard warning signal. For this reason, we conclude that S5.1.3 would prohibit the optical warning system you describe even if it were modified to operate through the hazard warning system lamps.

In the event that the System is precluded by Standard No. 108, you have asked about our procedure for petitioning for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108. These procedures are set forth in 49 CFR 552.4. The petition must contain the name and address of the petitioner and be addressed to the NHTSA Administrator. It must be in the English language, prefaced by the word "Petition," set forth facts in support of an amendment, and contain a brief description of the substance of the requested amendment. We are required to inform the petitioner within 120 days whether the petition is granted or denied. If the petition is granted, action on it may not be immediate as the petition must take its place among other rulemaking priorities.

Petitioners for changes in signaling lamp requirements should become familiar with the policy statement we issued in 1998 discussing how we evaluate rulemaking petitions to require or permit new or different signal lighting or signal lighting actuation (63 FR 59842). I enclose a copy for your information.

You also express your understanding that "NHTSA can issue a letter stating that Standard 108 does not preclude the use of this device in new vehicles, thereby allowing this invention to be installed on new cars." We do provide interpretive letters of this nature when a product does not conflict with the requirements and prohibitions of Standard No. 108. For the reasons indicated above, we cannot provide such a letter for this System.

Although a copy of the patent of the device and related application data did not accompany your letter, we did not need this information for purposes of this interpretation. If your staff has further questions, they may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263), the attorney who has previously spoken with your office on this subject.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.8/5/99

ID: nht90-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KENT D. SMITH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-26-90 TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA, FROM KENT D. SMITH, ATTACHED; [OCC-4387]

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 26, 1990, to the agency with respect to a safety lighting device. You have asked for our recommendations regarding this invention.

The problem addressed by your invention is "that vehicles need some way of signaling following drivers if the headlamps of their vehicles are blinding you." Your solution is to install a button that activates the backup lamps and extinguishes them in a m atter of a second or less. One alternative would be to operate only a single backup lamp, and another, to activate only the license plate lamp. This would provide a warning to the following driver.

The agency is concerned with glare, but its investigation of the phenomenon indicates that there are two types: discomfort glare, and disabling glare. Although it is certainly an annoyance, the glare produced by a headlamp shining into a rear view mirror is discomfort glare. In our judgment, a vehicle driver looking into the mirror will not suffer disabling glare so that he is unable to discern vehicles approaching, or pedestrians in the roadway; most vehicles are equipped with manual "day/night" mirro rs which may be easily operated in the event of discomfort. Equipment manufacturers have already addressed the problem by providing rear-view mirrors that have a photoelectric cell that dips them when a certain level of light intensity is reached. In s ummary, the agency does not believe that there is a nationwide safety problem requiring it to mandate the use of your device on motor vehicles as new vehicle equipment.

As an aftermarket item which a dealer could offer a new-car purchaser, its installation would be subject to the general prohibition in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that supplemental lighting devices shall not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. The question to be answered, therefore, is whether the device would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamps, or other rear lighting devices. The problem here is the necessity of rear lighting d evices to provide clear and unambiguous signals and

messages to following drivers. Anytime a lighting device does not provide a cue to which a following driver is accustomed, the potential for confusion arises. The driving public is unfamiliar with the sudden, though temporary, activation of the backup l amp, at normal driving speeds, or a modification in intensity of the license plate lamp. Without a substantial nationwide public education campaign, the signal imparted by your device is not likely to be understood by a following driver, and might distr act him from the signals of the other rear lighting devices. In this sense, we believe that your device might impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 does allow.

You have also noted the State prohibitions against use of backup lamps when the car is going in a forward direction. Even if the agency concluded that the device was permissible and would not cause impairment, the States are not precluded from enacting and enforcing their own standards on the use of lighting systems.

You may be interested to know that two letters to the Editor of The New York Times have appeared on this issue in the last month which suggest the use of existing lighting equipment to signal following drivers that their upper beams are on. I enclose th ese letters for your consideration.

I am sorry that we cannot be more encouraging in our remarks, but we do appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Enclosure

When the Driver Behind Is Blinding You

To the Editor:

Until we see the idea of a liquid crystal rear-view mirror, now in one Japanese luxury car, extended to side-view mirrors, as you propose in "Don't Stop There" (editorial, Jan. 18), there is a less than widely known way to dim the discomfort and dange r of bright headlights behind you.

While learning to drive in the Catskill Mountains around Monticello, N.Y., I discovered how to let the driver behind know that his or her brights are ripping out your retinas from the rear. As opposed to the signal for an oncoming driver (turning on your own brights, which is hard for an approaching motorist to miss, but useless for someone who can only see your tail lights), you deal with brights from behind by turning your lights completely off, then back on again.

Presumably, this demonstrates to the driver behind you, for a moment, that he or she is supplying enough light for both of you.

But there's a Catch-22. Drivers who know this signal are typically more experienced and rarely leave their brights on near other vehicles. The most frequent offenders are invariably ignorant of the signal.

As more drivers learn the meaning of the off-and-on signal, fewer of us, we may hope, will be blinded by the light from behind. TOM COBIN

Bayside, Queens, Jan. 18, 1990

Explaining Lights to the Driver Behind

To the Editor:

In "When the Driver Behind Is Blinding You" (letter, Feb. 3), Tom Cobin suggests turning your car headlights off and on several times to signal the driver behind that his or her bright lights are on.

But this can be dangerous. One's hands should be on the wheel when driving in traffic and not playing with the light switch. Also, driving for even a fraction of a second into an unlighted road is scary.

A safer method is to touch the brake pedal barely a time or two, to flash an alert, it is to be hoped, to the car behind that the lights are creating a problem.

The safest action is to slow down slightly and to let the offender pass, if the traffic permits. Then, a flash or two of your high beams in his or her rear view mirror might penetrate the skull of this particular thoughtless or careless driver, who i s but one representative of that large percentage at the wheel who should not be driving at all.

C. LINCOLN CHRISTENSEN Hurley, N.Y., Feb. 3, 1990

The writer is a longtime member of the Society of Automotive Engineers.

ID: 2791o

Ms. C. Dianne Black
Engineering Manager
Jaguar Cars, Inc.
600 Willow Tree Road
Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

Thank you for your letter of April l4, l988, providing further information about the Jaguar headlamp levelling system discussed in your letters of June and October l987 to which I responded on February 1, 1988.

We support your efforts to call the driver's attention to the fact that the system does not automatically return to the "zero" position from either of the two adjustment positions when those loading conditions no longer exist.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/l/88

ID: nht72-6.22

DATE: 02/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wells Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of February 2 you refer to paragraph S4.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and its reference to SAE Recommended Practice J564a, Headlamp Beam Switching, April 1964. You ask "whether there is anything in your Docket related to Rule #108 to bring it up to either J564b or J564c."

Perhaps you misread S4.5.1, but it does allow conformance with J564b as an alternative to J564a. No proposal has been issued requiring or allowing conformance with J564c.

ID: nht72-2.29

DATE: 06/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Harker Enerprises, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 22, 1972, to the Director, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning your patented Anti-Clare lenses for automotive headlights.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does prohibit the installation of devices in front of the headlamp lens, and also allows only white light from the headlights (Illegible Word) you have correctly concluded. There is no expectation of any future significant change in this area of Standard No. 108 requirements.

These requirements of Standard No. 108 are applicable to original equipment furnished on new vehicles; therefore, the allowance of sale of your Anti-Glare lenses in the aftermarket is under the jurisdiction of the Individual States.