ID: nht74-4.33

DATE: 07/08/74

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

TO: Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 28, 1974, question whether a short neoprene connector of two steel vacuum brake lines in the Bendix Hydrovac unit is subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses.

The neoprene connector functions as a brake hose under the definition set out in the standard:

"Brake hose" means a flexible conduit that transmits or contains the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

The determination of the "flexibility" of a particular brake line material is a difficult but important decision. Flexibility is required in brake lines for at least two reasons. First and most important is the flexibility required to accommodate large amounts of relative motion in service, in frame-to-axle applications for example. Less obvious but important is the flexibility required in the event a brake line is displaced during repair or alteration of the brake system or other nearby vehicle components. A mechanic's decision to bend a brake line during repairs may depend on whether it "looks" flexible, and therefore appearance becomes an important element of the determination. On this basis the NHTSA has concluded that copper and steel chassis plumbing, for example, do not invite bending during repairs because their appearance makes their relative inflexibility obvious.

In contrast, plastic air brake chassis plumbing and small sections of hose used to connect steel or copper tubing, are examples of "flexible conduits" that invite bending in order to make repairs. To ensure that these "flexible conduits" are not damaged when they are displaced, they are considered brake hose subject to the bend and deformation requirements of the standard. In the case of the Hydrovac, the presence of the neoprene connector would appear to permit flexibility to compensate for component misalignment and to permit removal and repair of the steel tubing. It therefore is considered a brake hose under this standard.

Sincerely Yours,

The Bendix Corporation

Docket Section

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

May 28, 1974

Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Clarification of Certain Portions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106

Clarification is requested concerning the requirements of FMVSS 106 (published in Notices 8 and 10 of Docket No. 1-5) as applied to the Vacuum Tube - Fig. 1 (Enclosure 1) used in our Hydrovac in-line vacuum/hydraulic brake booster. For convenience, a detail drawing of the Vacuum Tube is shown in Fig. 2 (Enclosure 2

On October 17, 1973, Bendix stated its opinion to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) regarding applicability of its regulations to the above-mentioned Vacuum Tube (Enclosure 3) and requested comments from BMCS. In reply, BMCS (Enclosure 4) concurred with Bendix' interpretation stating that "the use of 'tubing' rather than 'hose' is appropriate."

The request to BMCS was concerned primarily with BMCS' requirements for cord or duck ply in hose construction. We do not believe there is a question of construction of the tube as related to FMVSS 106; however, Enclosres 3 and 4 are included herewith only to help clarify the nature of the present request.

Reviewing the text of the Standard and the introductory comments to Notices 8 and 10, we are led to the conclusion that the definition of "Brake Hose" (S4, Paragraph 2) does not apply to the Bendix Vacuum Tube because of the lack of any requirement for flexibility. This conclusion seems to be supported by the lack of any bend requirement in Table V for hoses shorter than fourteen (14) inches in the diameter in question. On the other hand, the Bendix Vacuum Tube does "transmit or contains the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes". Hence, NHTSA is requested to verify Bendix' interpretation that FMVSS 106 is not applicable to the Bendix Vacuum Tube.

Your consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated in order to clarify the status of this part of the Hydrovac, which is a high volume component.

Respectfully submitted,

J. R. Farron

Group Director of Engineering

Enclosures (4)

FIG 1. SINGLE DIAPHRAGM HYDROVAC

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

The Bendix Corporation

October 17, 1973

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Attention: Docket Clerk

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety

Subject: Request for Clarification of Subchapter B - Motor Carrier

Safety Regulation, Part 393 - Parts and Accessories

Necessary for Safe Operation

Our review of Docket No. MC-41; Notice 73-9 has brought to our attention a need for clarification of the Part 393 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

The vacuum tubes for Bendix' Hydrovacs, an in-line vacuum/hydraulic brake booster, may fall within the provisions of Parts (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(ii) of Section 393.45 of the above reference. The item under discussion is noted as "Vacuum Tube" in Fig. 1. The cited Parts of the Regulation call for conformance of vacuum brake hose to SAE Standards which requires cord or duck ply reinforcement, whereas Bendix' tube is solid neoprene rubber. The detail drawing of the Vacuum Tube is given in Fig. 2.

One logical interpretation of the Regulation could conclude that it is intended to specify vacuum hose only between brake system components, and not specify hose where it is an integral part of a component such as the tube used in our Hydrovacs. It appears the Regulation's thrust is to avoid arbitrary selection from many types of hose which are available in bulk form, particularly in the field, and to assure sound installation of a flexible member that is formed as it is installed. This reasoning is exemplified by Part (a) of the Regulation which covers "General Requirements".

Our vacuum tube, on the other hand, is fully specified as to type, and is formed before installation, just as is any other part of the Hydrovac.

Bendix' historical experience indicates that the tube has been used in 8,000,000 Hydrovacs produced since 1947, and to our knowledge there have been no tube failures. It is not of SAE grade hose because it is used as a connector, as opposed to flexible plumbing in the vehicle vacuum system.

For purposes of clarification due to ambiguity in the language of the cited Parts, it is requested that you confirm our interpretation that the cited Sections of the Regulation do not apply to the vacuum tube used as an integral part of the Hydrovac.

If this request cannot be granted, we hereby enter a petition to change the cited sections as follows (added words underlined):

(b) (1) Change to read: "except as provided in Paragraph (c), brake hose installed on a motor vehicle for connection between brake system components on or after October 1, 1973, must conform to one of the following specifications"

(b) (2) Change to read: "except as provided in Paragraph (c), brake hose installed on a motor vehicle for connection between brake system components before October 1, 1973, must conform to either"

Your consideration and response to this request will be appreciated.

J. R. Farron

Group Director of Engineering

ID: nht74-4.34

DATE: 01/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your communication of January 3, 1974, forwarding to us correspondence dated November 29, 1973, from Mr. Bruce Motyka of Des Plaines. Mr. Motyka requests information regarding laws relating to pickup truck and camper weight limits, laws or studies relating to the sale of trucks exceeding GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) rate minimums, and regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.

The NHTSA has issued regulations relating to the installation of campers onto pickup trucks. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 "Truck camper loading" (49 CFR @ 571.126) requires each camper to bear a permanent label containing information on its maximum loaded weight. The standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that contains information on total camper weight, the selection of an appropriate pickup truck, appropriate methods of camper loading, how to determine the camper's center of gravity and where it should be placed in the truck cargo area. A companion "Consumer Information" regulation, "Truck camper loading" (49 CFR @ 575.103) requires that written information be provided at the sale of each truck capable of being equipped with a slide-in camper that deals with the correct installation of a slide-in camper in that vehicle. This information is also required to be available in dealers' showrooms for retention by prospective purchasers of such trucks.

Other NHTSA regulations (49 CFR Part 567, "Certification") require every motor vehicle, including pickup trucks, to be labeled, usually on the driver's door or door jam, with its gross vehicle weight rating, and the gross axle weight rating for each axle. Each of these ratings is intended to be based on the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, as determined by the vehicle's manufacturer. While it is possible for manufacturers to incorrectly rate vehicles, and thus be in noncompliance with the regulations, we have not found this practice to occur in the case of pickup trucks.

There are also Federal requirements requiring motor vehicle tires to carry a load rating. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 applies to passenger car tires and has been in effect since January 1, 1968. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 applies to tires for all other types of motor vehicles (trucks, trailers, buses, motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles) and will become effective September 1, 1974. This agency has conducted a study of the overloading of tires on recreational vehicles, and information regarding this study as well as copies of the safety requirements referred to above are enclosed.

We did not receive Mr. Motyka's earlier letter to us. As his questions are of a general nature we have provided him with general answers. If his questions involved a particular problem we would be happy to provide further assistance.

ENC.

REPLY TO: Office of United States

Senator Charles H. Percy

January 3, 1974

Mr. Bruce Motyka

2030 Laura Lane

Des Plaines, Ill. 60018

Respectfully referred to:

Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Division 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D. C. 20590

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, along with return of the enclosure, will be appreciated by

CHARLES H. PERCY/MO

Nov. 29, 1973

Senator Charles Percy Senate Office Building Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

Close to 2 month's ago I wrote a letter to the Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety - Washington, D.C. requesting the following information:

1. Laws Relating to Pickup Truck & Camper weight limits.

2. Laws and or studies relating to manufactures selling trucks exceeding GVW Rate maximums.

3. Regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.

I sent the Department of Transportation a rather lengthy letter requesting specific information, help & guidance

With all of the Public feeling concerning the present administration, it is very disturbing to me that I can't even get an answer to a simple inquiry.

This is the reason that I am writing to you. Would you please have someone check to see what happened to my original letter & ask that they reply as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Bruce J. Motyka

ID: nht74-4.35

DATE: 01/02/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: University Club Tower

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 10, 1973, question whether a dealer violates the Odometer Disclosure Requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and 49 CFR Part 580 if he simply duplicates the disclosure made to him when he bought the car.

If the dealer acts in good faith in making his disclosure, he is entitled to rely on the disclosure made to him as the basis of his statement. On the other hand, collusion between the dealer and the former owner to knowingly make a false disclosure would violate the Act. Either might be subject to suit and damages if intent to defraud can be shown.

We realize that such a burden of proof is difficult to meet and we suggest that, with regard to the dealer, an alternative remedy might be a report of possible misrepresentation to the state agency that licenses dealers.

YOURS TRULY,

December 10, 1973

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

Re: N40-30(TWH)

Thank you for your letter of December 5, 1973 with its enclosed rules and regulations issued by your department.

As you are aware the act states that a purchaser of a used automobile is entitled to rely on the odometer reading unless the seller states that it is inaccurate and the actual mileage is not known. The enforcement provisions of the act state that an inaccurate statement must be made with the intentions to defraud. In my particular case, the dealer has attempted to circumvent this section by obtaining a statement from the person who sold him the automobile in the same wording as the statement he must give his purchaser. In other words, a used car salesman ignores the act completely by acting as a middle man even though he knew or should have known that the mileage was in excess of the odometer reading.

I am aware that this act is so new that there are no reported cases but I would appreciate any assistance you can give me in overcoming this situation and also I wish to make you aware of how the act is being ignored in our area. Please advise me by return mail.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht74-4.36

DATE: 01/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Lousiana Independent Tire Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1973, to Michael Peskoe of our Chief Counsel's Office, asking whether dealers must record the name and address of the tire purchaser on the appropriate form at the same time the tire is sold. You indicate that most dealers record the information on their sales tickets and put it on registration forms at some later time, as the press of business allows.

The Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574) do not require dealers to record the information on the registration form at any specific time. The "scare stories" to which you refer are not true at all. A recent NHTSA investigation of dealer recording practices was intended only to discover whether dealers were writing down the tire ID number and the purchaser's name, and not whether they were recording the information on particular forms.

The Tire Identification regulation (@ 574.8(b)) requires the information to be supplied to the manufacturer (or person maintaining the information) every 30 days, unless less than 40 tires are sold (your letter to us incorrectly stated less than 60 tires), in which case the information must be reported when 40 tires are sold or 6 months elapses, whichever occurs first.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

SINCERELY,

Nov. 14 1973

Michael Peskoe Cheif Counsels Office Nat Hwy Traffic Safety Admin

Re: Tire Registration & Recordkeeping

A dealer has just contacted me about what seems to be a rather widespread concern.

As we interpret the registration law, a dealer must register his tires at least every 30 days, unless it is under 60 tires pr mo sales, in which case he does not have to turn in this registrations at once.

Because of the time press, most dealers simply get the information on their sales tickets, and then put it on registration forms once every couple of weeks, or as the press of business allows, so long as they get them in once per month.

Now a few scare stpries are going around that if they dont fill in the form right then & there, they will be fined $ 500.00 pr tire.

Before putting out anything to the members, then I wanted to be sure that my understanding was correct. I woild sure appreciate hearing from you.

George H. Jones Manager

Copy: Bill Fowler

ID: nht74-4.37

DATE: 01/08/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: American Retreader's Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 20, 1973, asking under what conditions retreaded tires, which you describe as, "not first class mainly from the standpoint of appearance, may be sold. You state that the tires are not defective, and are being sold for non-highway use, such as for farm wagons and hay bailers.

Standard No. 117 (Retreaded pneumatic tires) applies to all retreaded tires manufactured for use on passenger cars. The sale of such tires for off-highway vehicular purposes does not remove them from the coverage of the standard. Consequently, the tires must comply fully with Standard No. 117, bear the manufacturer's identification number (49 CFR Part 574), and not be restricted to off-road operation.

November 20, 1973

Mike Peskoe Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A number of our members have written, asking us questions concerning the sale or disposition of retreads that are not first class, mainly from the standpoint of appearance. They are not defective.

(Illegible Word) retreads are being sold to implement dealers for non-highway(Illegible Word) such as on farmwagons, hay balers, etc.

1.) Should the retreader remove his assigned identification mark before selling it?

2.) Should he leave his assigned identification mark on the retread and brand or otherwise permanently identify it as being for farm or non-highway use?

3.) Should he remove his assigned identification mark and permanently identify it as being for farm or non-highway use?

Your help in clarifying these questions will be appreciated.

Arden H. Faris Assistant Director

ID: nht74-4.38

DATE: 01/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Tire Distributors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 19, 1973, concerning a standardized form for tire registration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is aware of the problem that some dealers face in having to complete a multiplicity of tire registeration forms. Therefore, we issued on March 8, 1973, a proposal for a universal registration form such as you have suggested. We have received comments on our proposal from interested parties, and are currently revising it for issuance as a final rule in the spring of this year.

As to your specific question, whether you may adopt your own "universal" form, there is nothing in our regulations which would preclude your doing so. While Section 574.7 requires manufacturers, brand name owners, and retreaders to provide a means by which the registration data may be recorded and Section 574.3 requires distributors and dealers to submit the required information to the manufacturers, there is no requirement that the dealers utilize the manufacturers' forms. I have enclosed a copy of our proposed rule concerning universal tire registration forms. You should be aware that the proposal is now going through revisions based on comments received and the final rule may differ in some respects.

ENC.

ID: nht74-4.39

DATE: 01/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bureau of Consumer Protection

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for bringing the Ryder Rental odometer problem to our attention.

The odometer provisions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act apply only to tampering that leads to the under-representation of mileage. We recommend that over-representation cases be referred to the State consumer protection office. In this case, cf course, Mr. Sharkey registered his complaint there in the first instance.

December 27, 1973

Rules Docket Odometers U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Attached is a consumer complaint alleging that the odometer on a Ryder Rental Truck was grossly deficient. Since the discrepancy was over 100 miles on a 353 mile trip, it could indicate tampering and you might wish to check into the matter further under 14 USC @ 250 and your accompanying regulations.

Sincerely,

David C. Keehn, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices

Mr. Stephen C. Sharkey 67 County Street Apartment 2 (Illegible Word), Masschusetts 02771

Dear Mr. Sharkey:

Your letter concerning a purported overcharge on a truck rented from Ryder System, Inc., has been referred to me for reply.

The Commission is currently looking into the business practices of the automobile and truck rental industry. The problem you described is among those that the staff has under consideration.

As you may be aware, the Federal Trade Commission is authorized to act in the interest of the general public to require the discontinuance of unfair or deceptive practices. Our authority does not, however, extend to intervening or acting(Illegible Words) in individual cases. Accordingly, we regret that we cannot be of direst assistance to you in this matter. Nonetheless, your complaint will be added to the pending file, and such action will be taken as is warranted by the public interest.

To resolve your difficulties, you may wish to communicate directly with the company. If so, you should write to Mr. James A. Ryder, Chairman of the board, Ryder System, Inc., 2701 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida 33133. A copy of your letter to Mr. Ryder may be sent to Darian B. Andersen, Esquire, Law Department, Ryder System, Inc., 3600 N.W. 82nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33166. For your reference, we have enclosed a copy of your original letter to us.

Thank you for bringing this matter to the Commission's attention.

Sincerely yours,

Alan N. Schlaifer Attorney Division of Marketing Practices

ID: nht74-4.4

DATE: 06/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Lieberman; Tratras & Markowitz

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1974, enclosing a check for $ 1,000 and a suggested defect notification letter on behalf of your client, Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company.

The notification letter you enclose fails to conform in significant respects to 49 CFR Part 577, Defect Notification. The regulation presumes the notification will be sent by the manufacturer, as required by statute, and requires statements conforming to sections 577.4(a) and 577.4(b) to comprise the opening and second statements of the notification. We consider the format you have used, that of sending the letter in the name of an attorney for the company, to be inconsistent with this requirement. The first three sentences of the sample letter should thus be stricken. Moreover, section 577.4(b) (1) requires the vehicles or equipment which contain the defect to be identified in the second statement. Trailers are vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and not "equipment." We will accept as sufficient identification the year, model number if any, and the words "utility trailer" in meeting section 577.1(b) (1). The reference to equipment is inappropriate in that it implies that the defect is in the lighting (which is equipment) rather than in the vehicle.

Your letter also fails to evaluate the risk to traffic safety as required by section 577.4(d). In most cases, the potential result of a failure to install required lighting is vehicle crash, and the notification should thus conform to section 577.4(d) (1).

We consider the second and third sentences of your second paragraph and the second sentence of your next to last paragraph ("This notification is intended . . .") to be disclaimers and prohibited by section 577.6. Each should be stricken.

The sample notification letter must be revised as set forth above to conform to Part 577. In addition, the defect report (49 CFR Part 573) is required to be submitted within 5 days of the determination that the defect relates to motor vehicle safety, and not within 5 days of the mailing of notification letters. Your report should thus be submitted forthwith.

We will hold your check until you have submitted a notification letter and defect report in accordance with our requirements. At that time we will deposit the check and inform you that the case is closed.

ID: nht74-4.40

DATE: 01/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rex-Stroll-O-Chair Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated November 29, 1973, requesting our comments on your enclosed second-draft customer notification letter, on your second-draft press release, and on your proposed dealer notification letter.

Thank you for your prompt response to our previous suggestions. Your present draft conforms to most of the requirements set forth in our Defect Notification regulation (49 CFR Part 577). However, several further changes appear necessary.

First, the second sentence of the fifth paragraph states incorrectly that failure may occur only in rear impact collisions causing loads in excess of eight or nine hundred pounds. Actually, failure is more likely to occur in frontal impacts than in side or rear impacts. Failure may occur whenever the load on the belts exceeds about eight hundred pounds. Such loading can result from impacts from any angle. Frontal impacts are more likely to produce such loads because the principal restraint provided by the belts is against the relative forward motion of the child which the vehicle deceleration of a frontal impact produces. In the case of a rear impact, belt loading results from "rebound." Consequently, belt loading at a given rear impact speed will be considerably lower. Side impacts, of course, produce both direct and indirect loading.

Second, paragraph two of your draft does not quite comply with 49 CFR sections 577.4(b), 577.5, and 577.6. The first sentence of your second paragraph must read: "The Rex-Stroll-O-Chair Mfg. Co. has determined that the car seat adapter portion of Stroll-O-Chair Model 71s manufactured before (date) does not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213." Because the wording of the statement is specified precisely, we must insist that it be followed as closely as the particular facts of each case allow.

The second sentence of the paragraph appears to follow section 577.4(b) (2). However, such a determination must have some basis other than your initial compliance testing, which we understand to be the only basis for your persent statement. In our view, a section 577.4(b)(2) statement would be appropriate only if you had a firm basis for believing that some adapters are materially different from others. Passing results from your own compliance testing are not enough. Otherwise every defect notification letter would contain a section 577.4(b)(2) statement except where the manufacturer violated section 108(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, prohibiting false or misleading certification. Such cases are rare indeed compared to routine compliance test failures such as yours.

Third, the second (last) sentence of paragraph six of your draft may be misleading. We suggest adding the phrase "manufactured after (date)" after "all model # 71 car seats" to make it apparent that everyone receiving a defect notification letter has the older rivet system.

Fourth, although the injuries which could occur in the event of adapter failure are many, and are readily apparent, section 577.4(d)(2) requires a general statement of the types of possible injury. One sentence which mentioned impact injuries from contact with the dashboard and other parts of the vehicle interior and which also noted the likelihood of ejection from the vehicle would suffice if placed at the end of paragraph five of your draft.

Fifth, you should probably include a reminder or suggestion that the customer have his small child use adult safety belts during the time he does not have the adapter. Even small children who should ride in approved car seats are better off belted than unbelted. Such a warning could be included in your final paragraph. We consider it a precautionary statement under section 577.4(c)(4).

Finally, section 577.4(e)(1) requires an estimate of the time reasonably necessary to perform the labor to correct each noncompliance. Because you propose to have each adapter sent to your factory, either directly or through a dealer, it might also be helpful to estimate the total length of time the customer is likely to be without the seat adapter.

We have but two minor suggestions for the press release. First, your initial sentence should specify that the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is 213. Second, you should include the date on which you made your production method change. This is especially important because the designation "model # 71" encompasses both complying and noncomplying seats. Our consumer information staff is now drafting our own complementary press release. We will contact you about a joint issuance date.

We have no objection to your distributor notification letter.

ID: nht74-4.41

DATE: 01/11/74

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

TO: Corner Sterling & Machell Avenues

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1973 to "U.S. Bureau of Safety" expressing your view that "the automobile industry should . . . have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the (power) window meets any resistance."

I enclose a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window Systems which has applied to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with power windows manufactured since February 1, 1971. The objective of the standard is to minimize the likelihood of injury or death occurring when a person is caught between a closing window and its frame, channel, or seat. The NHTSA determined that the most cost-effective way to accomplish this objective was by prohibiting operation of power windows when the ignition key is either in the ignition "off" position or removed. As you will see from the enclosure, consideration was given to mechanisms that would reverse the direction of the window.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ENC.

December 11, 1973

Dr. Irvin Jacobs, M.D.

The circumstance and comment in your letter of November 21, 1973, regarding automatic window closing operation is noted. The matter is deemed to be in the jurisdiction of the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Therefore, we are forwarding your letter with a copy of this acknowledgement to DOT for their attention and an appropriate reply.

JOHN J. KLOCKO Chief, Materials Handling Technology Center

cc: FMSMUSS-118 U.S. Dept. of Transportation

November 21, 1973

U. S. Bureau of Safety Washington D. C.

Gentlemen:

Recently one of our young patients was brought in after having his head caught in the window of a car door after the automatic window closing operation had been started. Fortunately, this was not a serious accident; however, it could have been.

It seems the automobile industry should be prevailed upon to have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the window meets any resistance.

Sincerely,

IRVIN JACOBS, M.D.