ID: 9418

Herr Dr. Thomas Lckemeyer
ITT Automotive Europe
Bietigheim-Bissingen
Dept. VER/LB

FAX 07142/73-2895

Dear Dr. Lckemeyer:

This responds to your FAX of December 10, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked the following questions with respect to the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars:

"Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the FMVSS 108."

Paragraph S5.1.3. of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation as original equipment of additional lamps such as rear fog lamps if the additional lamp "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard." The determination of whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit impairs the effectiveness of other lighting equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the lamp is installed. Unless such a determination is clearly erroneous, this agency will not question it.

We do not know whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit is permissible in all the States. Because a fog lamp is not required motor vehicle equipment under Federal law, each State in which it is used may regulate it according to its own laws. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, and suggest that you ask the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its FAX number is 001 703 522 1553, and its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

"Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?"

There are no Federal requirements that apply to rear fog lamps, and, as noted above, we are not conversant with state requirements. For your information, the latest specification of the Society of Automotive Engineers for this item of equipment is SAE Recommended Practice J1319 AUG87 "Fog Tail Lamp (Rear Fog Light) Systems."

"Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?"

No. The certification of the vehicle manufacturer is its representation that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. A State has no authority to question this certification.

However, a State is permitted to have a State vehicle lighting standard provided that the State lighting standard is identical to the Federal lighting standard in those areas covered by the Federal lighting standard. Under these circumstances, a State may enforce the State lighting standard even if the vehicle is certified as conforming to the Federal lighting standard. Furthermore, a State may have its own State lighting standard in those areas where there is no Federal lighting standard, such as fog lamps.

"Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S."

AAMVA may be able to provide you with this information as we are unable to. Because State requirements must be identical with respect to the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, State specifications and prohibitions will differ only with respect to supplementary lighting equipment not covered by Standard No. 108 such as cornering lamps and front and rear fog lamps.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:12/23/93

ID: 9424

Mr. Joe Miller
Product Support Manager
Load King
Box 427
Elk Point, SD 57025

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in response to your FAX of December 10, 1993.

You have informed us that Load King manufactures trailers, selling them to a dealer in Minneapolis who, in turn, sells these trailers to customers/users. You would like the dealer "to do some finish manufacturing for us." Specifically, you would like the dealer "to paint the trailers, install operational decals and place the conspicuity striping." You ask whether "primed trailers can be moved without conspicuity striping in this case."

The answer is no. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its regulations, when a completed motor vehicle is delivered to its dealer, it must be certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and it must, in fact, comply with all such standards at the time of delivery. Thus, your trailers are required to be equipped with the conspicuity treatment at the time of shipment since the treatment is a requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The Minneapolis dealer, however, may apply paint and decals since this is not required under Standard No. 108 or any other regulation.

Were the trailer one that is manufactured in more than one stage, our regulations would permit the final stage manufacturer to apply the conspicuity treatment since that manufacturer is required to affix the necessary certification of compliance with all standards upon completion of the final stage of manufacture. However, painting and application of the conspicuity treatment are regarded as minor finishing operations that do not rise to the level of being a separate stage of manufacturing, and this exception is not available under the facts that have been presented to us.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/22/94

ID: 9427

Ms. Lisa A. Norris
P.O. Box 41
Mandeville, LA 70470

Dear Ms. Norris:

This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1993, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency. You have written us questioning the disconnection of your original equipment center highmounted stop lamp when an aftermarket spoiler with lamp was installed on your Honda. American Honda has referred you to us, referencing an interpretation by our former Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice.

I enclose a copy of Mr. Rice's letter of August 31, 1990, to David Holscher which sets forth the agency's views on this subject. These views remain our position.

The disconnecting of your lamp appears permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 according to this interpretation. Because Federal authorities do not interpret the laws of the individual States, we are unable to comment on the Louisiana provisions that you paraphrase, except to note that "tail lights", as you refer to them, are not "stop lamps" under Standard No. 108. Taillamps are another item of lighting equipment and have no relevance to the wiring of the center highmounted stop lamp.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:12/27/93

ID: 9433

Mr. David Fabrycky
1633 W. Willeta St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Dear Mr. Fabrycky:

This responds to your letter about an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. The product is a child safety seat buckle shield, which is intended to prevent a child from opening the buckle on a child restraint system. You state that your device would cover the buckle and prevent the child from gaining access to the pushbutton of a child seat buckle. To depress the pushbutton, the device requires that a latch be actuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle. You indicated that the device requires "manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simultaneously."

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have reservations about devices that interfere with the unbuckling of the seats. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and answers the questions in your letter about the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard 213 before selling the product.

Additionally, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said in a rule on the force level necessary to operate child restraint buckles:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722; August 21, 1985)

It appears that your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In determining the effect of a buckle shield on a child seat's compliance with Standard 213, NHTSA would evaluate the performance of the seat with the buckle shield installed. Standard 213 specifies several elements of design with which a child restraint system is unlikely to comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. That section also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. Your device will not allow the buckle to release when the force is applied because it will cover the buckle and require force to be applied "in many directions simultaneously." Your device would thus cause the child restraint to no longer comply with that requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard 213 requires each material used in a child restraint system to comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of their child restraints.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#VSA d:5/12/94

ID: 9439

Sgt. Dennis Platt, Supervisor
Vehicle Safety & Equipment Section
State of Utah
Department of Public Safety
Utah Highway Patrol
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119-5994

Dear Sgt. Platt:

This responds to your letter of December 7, 1993, requesting confirmation of a statement made by a NHTSA officer that there is no federal regulation that requires replacement of a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the two letters discussed above. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:208 d:12/30/93

ID: nht69-1.21

DATE: 08/29/69

FROM: WARREN M. HEATH -- COMMANDER ENGINEERING SECTION CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TO: ROBERT BRENNER -- ACTING DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU

COPYEE: GAIL STRADER -- SAFETY SERVICES DIV. DEPT. REV.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/29/69 FROM CHARLES A. BAKER -- NHTSA TO WARREN M. HEATH

TEXT: Dear Dr. Brenner:

A vehicle manufacturer has notified us that their 1970 model vehicles will be equipped so that the sidemarker lamps will flash when the turn signal switch is activated. The flashing will occur on the side contemplated for the turn.

An interpretation is requested as to whether or not Section S3.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 would permit the flashing of sidemarker lamps simultaneous with the turn signal lamps on the side to which a turn is contemplated.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht69-1.22

DATE: 09/12/69

FROM: CHARLES A. BAKER -- NHTSA OFFICE OF STANDARDS ON ACCIDENT AVOIDANCE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY PERFORMANCE SERVICE

TO: WARREN M. HEATH -- COMMANDER, ENGINEERING SECTION DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/29/69; FROM WARREN M. HEATH TO ROBERT BRENNER -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Heath:

Thank you for your letter of August 29, 1969, to Dr. Robert Brenner, Acting Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the flashing of sidemarker lamps when the turn signal switch is activated.

Paragraph S3.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the flashing of sidemarker lamps simultaneously with the turn signal lamps on the side to which a turn is contemplated.

Sincerely,

ID: nht69-1.23

DATE: 08/20/69

FROM: WARREN M. HEATH

COMMANDER ENGINEERING SECTION

TO: ROBERT BRENNER --

ACTING DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COPYEE: GEORGE GAUDAEN -- SAE

TITLE: REF: 81.A215.A1575

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brenner:

We have a copy of a letter to Mr. Charles W. Heyer of Electrical Testing Laboratories from Mr. Charles A. Baker regarding photometric test procedures. That letter quite clearly points out the method in which the National Highway Safety Bureau desires multicompartment turn signal lamps to be(Illegible Word). However, it raises additional questions concerning procedures to be used both by a laboratory in determining compliance of a device with the Federal standards and by a manufacturer in designing a lamp to meet these standards.

The photometric requirements in SAE(Illegible Word) were developed several years ago before multicompartment lamps were in common use. These standards reasonably well fulfilled the need in upgrading the performance of single-compartment lamps at that time. Later, experience with some of the original multicompartment lamps and complaints about excessive brightness of the taillamps and stoplamps on vehicles brought about a need for revising the standards.

At that time, each section of a multicompartment lamp was treated in the same manner as an individual lamp, since their performance was little different than that of individual lamps set side by side. Therefore, each compartment of a three-compartment lamp had to meet the(Illegible Words) for a taillamp and the 80 candlepower minimum for a turn signal lamp. In addition, each compartment was allowed to have a maximum intensity of 15 candlepower at or above horizontal for the taillamp and 300 candlepower in red for the turn signal lamp.

The above maximum values were reasonable when only one or two lamps were used on each side of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the first three-compartment lamps were built with such high light output that each compartment barely complied with the

maximum. This meant in some cases that the combined taillamp output on each side of the vehicle was over 45 candlepower and the combined turn signal output was barely below the total maximum of(Illegible Word) candlepower, thereby being annoyingly bright to following drivers.

The manufacturers and the(Illegible Word) Lighting Committee recognized this problem and alter a number of demonstrations of systems and rewriting of proposed crafts developed the multicompartment rear lamp specification in(Illegible Words). The original brightness problem appeares to be quote simple and could have been solved merely by reducing the maximum intensities allowed multicompartment lamps; however, the manufacturers were concerned that they would then be squeezed between a high minimum value for each compartment and a low maximum value which did not allow sufficient(Illegible Word) for normal design and production.

The SAE studies indicated that with the types of multiple compartment lamps(Illegible Word) were in use about three years ago, the values in SAE(Illegible Word) applying to the total light output of the multicompartment lamp were reasonable. This standard did not cover every combination of brightness and lens area that might be involved in providing anytime effectiveness while limiting nighttime brightness to reduce annoyance, but it was a first step in this direction.

Manufacturers who have attempted to comply with both(Illegible Words) and SAE(Illegible Word) have differences in interpretation of your requirements. We would like to have the following points clarified so we do not cause the manufacturers unnecessary difficulties when we test devices for compliance with Federal and State standards:

1. Section(Illegible Words) specifies in part that the photometric requirements "shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps".

(a) Does this mean that if one compartment or lamp meets the minimum and maximum requirements, the other compartments or lamps can have photometric output either below the minimums required or above the maximum permitted?

(b) Does this mean that one lamp may be used to meet the minimum requirements with the others adding stray light, provided the maximum requirement of 15 candlepower in the case of taillamps and(Illegible Word) candlepower in the case of turn signal lamps is not exceeded when all lamps or compartments are lighted simultaneously?

(c) Does the manufacturer have the choice in interpreting this section as to which method is most favorable to him for his particular design?

2. Mr. Baker's letter of May 12 states that "The sums of the measured candlepowers at the test points of separately photometered lamps or compartments of a combination shall not be acceptable", whereby implying that all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously.

(a) What was the purpose of stating in Section 3.1.1.7 that photometric requirements shall be provided by "one" or a combination of compartments if individual tests are not permitted to determine whether one compartment actually does comply?

(b) If it is the intent that the compartments shall be measured simultaneously, should not the above section be(Illegible Word) to eliminate the implied alternative of having only one of the lamps comply?

3. FMVSS No. 198 makes no mention of the method of testing multicompartment and multilamp taillamps and steplamps, as Section 3.1.1.7 applies only to turn signals.

(a) Do the standards require each compartment of a taillamp or steplamp to be tested separately to show compliance with(Illegible Word), or are they to be tested simultaneously as required of turn signals?

(b) Must each separate lamp or individual compartment meet the taillamp-to-steplamp ratio, or is it sufficient that the compartments when lighted together meet the ratio even though a particular lamp or compartment does not comply individually.

4. The California Vehicle Code contains a Section(Illegible Word) which prohibits a motor vehicle from being equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not specifically required or permitted by the Code. The manufacturers would like to interpret Section(Illegible Words) as permitting any number of additional taillamps and stoplamps on each side, provided only the lamp meets the requirements of J575c. The only limitation they propose is that all of the lamps taken together do not exceed the maximum candlepower requirements(Illegible Words), as an example of nonimpairment of the effectiveness of the single required lamp. They would also use photometric data showing that the total stoplamp to total taillamp output complies with the ratio requirements of J575c; again, to prove nonimpairment.

(a) Do the Federal standards preempts states from enforcing present requirements that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and to approved for that function?

(b) Are all of the separate lamps in the multiple rear lamp arrangement considered by the Bureau as comprising one lamp and(Illegible Word) to be taken as such by the states in enforcing identical standards?

(c) Does the Federal standard merely require the minimum of one stoplamp and taillamp on each side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of(Illegible Word), with the additional optional lamps to be provided at the manufacturers discretion regardless of whatever standards the states may have for any such supplemental lamps?

5. Some modern designs of multicompartment lamps have three compartment configurations where the large(Illegible Word) compartment is a backup lamp and on each side of it is a taillamp-stoplamp combination. Other configurations include a three compartment lamp centered on the rear of the vehicle where the middle compartment as a taillamp-stoplamp combination and the compartments on each side of it perform only taillamp functions.

(a) Where one rear lamp compartments are separated by a backup lamp compartment, as the entire lamp to be tested as a single unit as though the rear lamp sections were adjacent to each other?

(b) With respect to the device where a taillamp is on each side of a center-mounted stoplamp, are the taillamps considered a part of the physically integral three-compartment center lamp for the purposes of determining compliance with minimum and maximum specifications and ratio requirements? Or, is the taillamp on each side of the stoplamp to be tested simultaneously with the other taillamps on that particular side of the vehicle for the purposes of determining compliance?

The manufacturers have been quite ingenius in developing different variations of multiple lamps and multicompartment lamps and each has his own interpretation as to how his particular arrangement might be considered as complying with a specific Federal or SAE standard. We have been asked a number of questions such as those above as a result of our program of purchasing and testing devices for conformance to the standards.

We would very much appreciate your giving consideration to this problem and providing us with specific information that we can use in answering inquiries from foreign and American manufacturers and on using the correct test procedure for determining compliance of a specific device with the requirements.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht69-1.24

DATE: 05/28/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Cony America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 2, 1969 in which you asked whether the Cony vehicle, model AF11SFC, which you import, must be equipped with a windshield defrosting and defogging system in compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103.

You describe the vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle having an open cab configuration, and your letter states that defrosting and defogging of its windshield is accomplished by natural air currents while the vehicle is operating. You also indicate that the vehicle will be operated on the public highways.

On the basis of the information contained in your letter and study of the two photographs of the Cony that accompanied it, it is our view that, subject to the exceptions noted below, models of this vehicle that have windshield or are fitted for installation of windshields must also have windshield defrosting and defogging systems.

Vehicles which are operated in the continental United States may encounter icy or snowy conditions in which the absence of a windshield defrosting system may pose an unreasonable safety hazard. The fact that the vehicle lacks an enclosed cab does not appreciably reduce that hazard. However, we do not interpret Standard No. 103 as requiring a defrosting and defogging system in a vehicle that has no windshield and on which a windshield cannot be installed without such major modifications as would make the installer himself a motor vehicle manufacturer. One of the photographs you submitted shows your vehicle without a windshield, but it does not contain enough detail to enable us to determine whether the vehicle falls into the latter category I have described.

You should be aware of two exceptions to the requirements of Standard No. 103, either of which may apply to the Cony. First, section 371.7 of our regulations provides that the standards apply only to vehicles which have a curb weight of more than 1,000 pounds. Hence, the Cony need not conform to the requirements of the standard if its curb weight is 1,000 pounds or less. Second, Standard No. 103 applies only to vehicles manufactured for sale in the continental United States. Therefore, your vehicle could be imported into jurisdictions such as Hawaii and the Virgin Islands even though it fails to conform to the requirements of that standard. The contents of your letter do not furnish enough information to permit us to ascertain whether either exception would apply.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesistate to call upon me for it.

ID: nht69-1.25

DATE: 02/19/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Trico-Folberth, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 1, 1969, concerning your windsheild washer system.

Apparently our letter of October 3, 1968, to Mr. B. C. Johnson was misunderstood. In Mr. Johnson's inquiry of August 23, 1968, he stated "it is easy to deliver 15 cc's of fluid inside the three seconds specified." The wording of our reply acknowledged that this performance would be acceptable--it was not intended to be a literal interpretation of our requirements or the SAE Recommended Practice.

We learned that the SAE Windshield Wiping Subcommittee plans to revise J942, Passenger Car Windshield Washer Systems, to clarify the particular points you question. Meanwhile, we think the intent of Section S4.2 of Standard No. 104 is satisfied by the following interpretation of the referenced SAE Recommended Practice:

1. Paragraph 3.1 of J942 requires that 75% of the effective wiped area be cleared in 10 wiper cycle or less. Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 104 requires that these areas be established in accordance with subparagraph S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104.

2. The requirement to wipe 75% clear must also be not within 15 seconds as stipulated in paragraph 4.1.3(c) of J942.

3. A washer cycle is defined in paragraph 2.11 of J942 as "The system actuation sufficient to deliver approximately 15 cc of fluid to the windshield glazing surface." Note this definition does not actually define the number of actuation necessary to deliver the 15 cc, although the use of the word "actuation" appears to be singular. It is obvious that the intent of paragraph 4.1.3(c) is that this amount of fluid shall be delivered during the 15 second test period.

4. In paragraph 4.4.2(b) of J942 (under the durability test) the Recommended Practice requires: "For manual systems a single actuation shall consist of actuation of the control for a period not to exceed 3 seconds." It is important to note that this specifies the time required for the driver to operate the control--not the total time for the washer system to actuate. It appears this definition refers to a control actuation; whereas, the definition for "washer cycle" refers to a system actuation. This is borne out in paragraph 2.2 of J942 which defines "controls" as "A means for actuating and arresting the windshield washer system. The actuation may be coordinated or semicoordinated with components of the windshield wiper or may be fully independent."

5. Note that the following sentence in paragraph 4.4.2(b) states: "For automatic systems an actuation shall consist of one actuation of the control." This seems to indicate, by inference, that more than one control actuation is acceptable for manual systems.

6. Therefore, the intent of the referenced SAE Recommended Practice by Section S4.2 of Standard No. 104 is that manual washer systems may be actuated more than once to provide the 15 cc of fluid as long as it does not require the operator more than 3 seconds to operate the control for any single system actuation--and the washer system must deliver 15 cc of fluid to clear 75% of the wiped area within 10 cycles and within 15 seconds.

7. Note that any additional system actuations needed to meet the 15 cc requirement will also require that the manufacturer increase accordingly the total number of control actuations for the durability test in Table I, "Test Sequence" in J942.

We assume that your windshield washing system meets these requirements based upon your explanation of your manual system. However, we wish to point out our concern that the existing regulations do not adequately define washer system performance requirements, since it is possible under the current regulations for the driver to be needlessly occupied with the washer controls during a period of reduced visibility. Accordingly, we expect to up-grade the washer system performance requirements as soon as practicable.