ID: nht74-5.9

DATE: 01/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: John W. Davis; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1973, on behalf of Ms. Judith Davis, who has suggested the incorporation of the Federal odometer form into the bill of sale as a means of reducing paperwork in motor vehicle transactions.

Although the Federal odometer disclosure regulation requires the seller to give the buyer several items of information that we consider essential to adequate disclosure, the regulation does not require the use of a separate form. If Ms. Davis is able to include the required information in the bill of sale used by the Rome Auto Auction, she may do so. Information items that are common to the bill of sale and the disclosure statement, such as the model and make of the vehicle, would not have to be stated twice.

Enclosures

ID: nht75-1.1

DATE: 11/26/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Libby-Owens-Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

N41-42

H. M. Alexander, Vice President Technical Development & Services Libbey-Owens-Ford Company 1701 East Broadway Toledo, Ohio 43605

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is a further reply to your letter of September 11, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the test procedures for measuring light transmission of glazing materials in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

As you know, the purpose of the luminous transmittance requirement is to assure that safety glazing used in motor vehicles at levels requisite for driving visibility, does not restrict the vehicle operator's vision below that necessary for safe operation. Further, the apparent effective luminous transmittance of safety glazing as viewed by the human eye is the average transmittance of the entire area surveyed by the eye. In view of this, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would not consider glazing with an average luminous transmittance over its entire area of 70 percent or more to be in non-compliance with the standard.

As you pointed out, the luminous transmittance test procedure specified by Standard No. 205 does not specify the diameter of the measuring light beam. Thus, you are free to use any diameter light beam that is appropriate.

In regard to the distinct bend lines in your back window, we would consider for purposes of determining luminous transmittance, your back window to be divided into three sections - two wings and the central section. Thus, in this case, the distinct bend lines would not be considered as glazing material.

Sincerely,

James B. Gregory Administrator

September 11, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Gregory:

On August 25, we met at the Department of Transportation with Messrs. Guy Hunter, Doug Pritchard and Chuck Kaehn and discussed a new type automotive backlight.

This new type backlight offers advantages toward greater safety by better rear visibility with minimal optical distortion. However, we questioned whether this type backlight meets the 70% light transmission requirement of the ANSI Code Z26 which is a requirement of FMVSS 205.

This new backlight achieves its advantages as the result of bending sharply around a "hot line" electrical conductor which results in a .190" wide opaque line at the boundary between the intersecting bent glass surfaces. In the heated version of such a backlight, the conducting lines in the wing areas are only 17/32" apart whereas in the central area of the backlight, the lines are 1-1/8" apart. See attached sketch of "hot line bent" back window dated September 5, 1975.

The ANSI Code which requires that such an automotive backlight have a light transmission above 70%, does not specify the diameter of the measuring light beam or its placement on the backlight. In the backlight discussed here, if a 1-1/4" diameter measuring beam is used and positioned with one heating line centered in the beam in the central or major rear vision area, it meets the 70% requirement, see Figure 1 in the attached memorandum by Paul Mattimoe dated September 5, 1975. However, if two heating lines are located symmetrically within the same beam as shown in Figure 3 in attached memo, the transmission does not meet the code requirement.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the NHTSA provide an interpretation which will recognize that this improved design of backlight meets the intent of FMVSS 205. Specifically we would suggest that the interpretation specify the positioning of one frit conductor line centered in the light beam as shown in Figure 1 of the attachment. This orientation will provide additional objectivity in the test conditions while the 70% transmissibility requirement will continue to limit the amount of abscuration which could be caused by the electrical conductors. In addition, we suggest that transmission measurements should not be required at the boundaries formed by the intersection of any two glazing surfaces.

We will appreciate your consideration of this request. We will be glad to meet at DOT offices again if advisable. It is urgent that a decision be received since production tooling for the car model involved in this request is proceeding at the present time.

Very truly yours,

H. M. Alexander Vice President Technical Development & Services

HMA:pjp

Attachments

ID: nht75-1.10

DATE: 12/17/75

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

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your October 20, 1975, letter concerning the status of amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination, that were proposed in Notice 10 (Docket 1-18, 38 FR 26940, September 27, 1973).

Although a further proposal on this subject is being considered, no final decision has been made by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning action on the outstanding proposal. You should be guided by the standard in its present form. The effective date of any amendments issued by the NHTSA will allow adequate lead time for compliance.

YOURS TRULY,

October 20, 1975

Office of General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

On 27 September, 1973, Docket 1-18, Notice 10 proposed several changes to FMVSS 101. One specific change proposed the use of ISO symbols in lieu of the current 101 symbols.

Notice 11, issued 29 July, 1975, amended the Standard in respect of the ISO symbols alone. It made, however, no reference whatsoever to the remaining proposals of Notice 10.

We are presently negotiating with our supplier for new instruments for 1977 model year vehicles. We propose to identify the fuel, oil pressure and temperature guages with ISO symbols rather than words, as this would allow commonization between European and USA guages. While the symbols we propose for these guages are not prohibited at the present time, we are concerned that the words proposed in Table 2, Notice 10 might be implemented.

Are steps being taken on the Notice 10 proposals or may we proceed with ISO symbols with confidence that NHTSA will propose ISO symbols for all controls mentioned in Notice 10 at some future time.

BRITISH LEYLAND MOTORS INC.

Dianne Black Liaison Engineer

ID: nht75-1.11

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of August 4, 1975, with Mark Schwimmer concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination, to an intermittent-operation windshield wiper switch.

Your letter of June 4, 1975, described such an intermittent operation switch which is distinct from the normal windshield wiper switch. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, Standard No. 101 requires neither illumination nor any particular location for this intermittent switch, because the normal switch is already subject to all of the standard's requirements.

SINCERELY,

June 4, 1975

Richard B. Dyson NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

This is to request your official interpretation as to the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in the case of an 'intermittent-operation' windshield wiper switch. The switch would be offered as a dealer installed option and is intended for use when driving in light rain.

I am enclosing photographs showing the recommended switch positions, photo A shows placement on vehicles fitted with air conditioning, photo B is without airconditioning. The location of the standard wiper switch is shown in both photos.

The optional switch has a non-illuminated control knob identified by a windshield wiper symbol and the letters 'INT'.

The switch will cause the wipers to operate intermittently, one stroke across the windshield and back to the parked position, at intervals ranging from 2 to 10 seconds depending upon the degree of rotation of the control from the 'ON' position. The intermittent operation switch will operate the wipers when the standard wiper switch is in the 'OFF' position; switching ON the standard switch will over-ride the intermittent operation.

I would appreciate your early response on this matter. Please contact me if you need further information.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Assistant Manager Safety & Environmental Activities (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-1.12

DATE: 07/08/75

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

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 5, 1975, asking at what point the test voltage may be measured during testing for compliance with the Standard No. 103, Windshield Defogging and Defrosting Systems, requirement that the blower motor test voltage be 15% over nominal system rating at the blower motor or the supply end of the motor dropping resistor. Your question relates to the meaning of "the supply end of the motor dropping resistor."

Measurement of the blower motor test voltage should occur at the supply side of the motor where there is no resistor. Where the system contains a resistor, the voltage should be measured at the supply side of the resistor, not between the resistor and the motor. The reason for this is that the test voltage level specified in the standard is intended to relate only to the voltage as it is fed into the defrosting and defogging system. The purpose of the voltage level specification is to assure a system capability to handle voltage levels that will normally be encountered during operation of the defroster and defogger. This can be accomplished by measurement of the voltage before the current reaches the resistor.

Yours Truly,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

May 5, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Interpretation; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 103 - Windshield Defrosting & Defogging Systems

FMVSS 103 through reference to SAE J902, requires that the blower motor test voltage be 15% over nominal system rating at the blower motor (for example 13.8 volts on the 12 volt system) or the supply end of motor dropping resistor.

The terminology "the supply end of motor dropping resistor" does not, in our opinion, provide specific direction on the test methods to be used for designing to this Standard. We would appreciate receiving clarification as to whether or not the test voltage may be measured at:

1. the motor,

2. the circuit between the dropping resistor and the motor, or

3. the dropping resistor on the side of the electrical power source.

We recommend that the requirements be interpreted to mean that the test voltage shall be measured at the motor or before the dropping resistor if included in the defroster motor circuit.

Permitting the use of a dropping resistor in the defroster motor circuit permits the designer to provide exact blower motor speeds for this function. Should, however, this resistor be excluded during compliance testing, the higher voltage at the motor would result in higher fan speeds, which might result in less than optimum deicing of the windshield.

Should you require any additional information concerning this request, do not hesitate in contacting this office.

Heinz W. Gerth

Assistant Vice President

Engineering

ID: nht75-1.13

DATE: 05/16/75

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

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 16, 1975, question whether the test procedure of S7.7.1 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, permits reapplication of the parking brake if the vehicle fails to hold on the required grade after the first application of a force or series of forces. You also ask whether a brake warning indicator which signals a short-lived loss of pressure during a spike stop brake application would conform to S5.3.1(a)(1).

Section S7.7.1 directs (in part) application of the parking brake with a force or series of forces, release of the service brake which has been holding the vehicle on the required grade, and indicates that in release of the service brake, "it may be necessary to reapply it, if the vehicle moves slightly, to take up the parking brake system slack." (emphasis added).

The word "it" refers to the service brake system, and not the parking brake system. This sentence permits application of the service brake only, which has the effect of taking up parking brake system slack due to rotation of the brake shoes and drum prior to bottoming against the anchor pin. This service brake application is intended to provide the best opportunity for a static test of the parking brake.

You state that a differential pressure can occur within the Mazda master cylinder during a spike stop brake application because the piston travels beyond the outlet port to the rear wheel brake lines. This pressure differential causes momentary activation of the brake warning indicator lamp.

The NHTSA would consider in this case that, as a technicality, momentary failure of the rear wheel subsystem has occurred because continued braking pressure cannot be applied to the rear wheels. You point out that the system corrects immediately and the signal lamp is extinguished.

From your description of the Mazda system, NHTSA concludes that the activation of the signal lamp conforms to the requirements of S5.3.1(a)(1) as long as it is designed to extinguish as soon as the system corrects and continued brake force could be applied to the rear wheels.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

April 16, 1975

James C. Schultz -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Dear Mr. Schultz: In determining the final system for meeting MVSS 105-75, we are having some trouble in following some of the test requirements. We would highly appreciate it if we could have your view on the following questions until April 25, 1975 in order to relief them.

1. Re: Parking Brake Test Procedure in S7.7.1

When we run the test according to this section, we understand the following sequence (a) through (h) acceptable.

a) Bring the vehicle on the grade and hold it by applying the service brake.

b) Apply the parking brake by keeping the service brake working with specified force.

c) Release the service brake.

d) Check the movement.

e) If moved slightly, reapply the service brake and hold it.

f) Then reapply parking brake with the specified force to take up its slack without releasing it.

g) Release service brake again.

h) Check the movement.

2. Re: Brake Indicator Lamp

During the spike stop test on our model, it was observed that the "brake indicator lamp" lit while the test driver kept depressing the service brake pedal. We studied this problem and found that as shown in the drawing its master cylinder piston can travel beyond the hole which supplies brake fluid to the rear brake cylinder, that generates the difference in the pressure of front and rear.

As the brake indicator lamp works by sensing the difference in pressure of the front and rear, this lamp becomes "on" accordingly.

(Graphics omitted)

However, this piston does not travel beyond its hole under normal operation. If this lamp should light during spike stop, this will not give any problem to the drivers because this lamp will turn out after releasing pedal force.

We would like to have your view on the acceptability of the above condition.

Sincerely yours,

H. (Speedy) Hirai -- Technical Representative, Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd. (Mazda), Representative office

cc: V. Bloom; T. Herliny

ID: nht75-1.14

DATE: 08/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Business

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 18, 1975, question whether S5.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, requires that the brake fluid level warning system specified by S5.3.1 be instantaneous when the brake fluid level reaches the condition described in S5.3.1(b).

The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recognizes that a minimal interval between the occurrence of the specified condition and the appearance of the required signal is a physical fact. I enclose a copy of an interpretation of a similar requirement of Standard No. 105-75 for your information. In the case of the brake fluid level indicator, a time interval that is insignificant with respect to the time required to respond to the signal would be permissible.

Sincerely

Enclosure

ATTACH.

June 18, 1975

Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Specification S5.3 of Regulation FMVSS 105-75 includes a requirement of brake system indicator lamps but does not, as I read it, mention the time permitted for such devices to signal after the brake fluid has reached the "danger" level.

Must it be instaneous? If not, what time intervals at various temperatures do you consider adequate?

As a United States citizen I respectfully request your advice on this point at your early convenience.

Very truly yours,

W. J. JOYCE -- CONSULTANT, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

ID: nht75-1.15

DATE: 06/06/75

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

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 29, 1975, question whether S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, permits a brake fluid warning statement on a filler cap to be partially obscured by two "contact blades" on the cap which apparently are inserted into a receptacle attached to the vehicle. The description you enclose is similar to one submitted with an earlier request which we evaluated in a March 3, 1975, letter to your representative, Mr. Paul Utans.

Sections S5.4.3 (b) requires that the statement be "located so as to be visible by direct view." As noted in our March 3 letter, this requirement prohibits an arrangement which would obscure any part of the statement. We also noted that S5.4.3(b) permits a location within 4 inches of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or cap to accommodate arrangements which do not permit use of the fuller cap as a location.

From the drawing you enclose, we conclude that the contact blades obscure part of the warning and it therefore would not comply with the requirement of S5.4.3(b). As an enforcement matter, we would find it impossible to allow a "minor noncompliance" and still be able to enforce a standard objectively. We do not consider the ability to turn the cap to expose the warning to constitute "visible by direct view."

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

April 29, 1973

Subject: Your Letter Dated March 3, 1975 to Mr. Paul Utans - N40-30 (TWH)

Dear Mr. Dyson,

In our inquiry of January 19, 1975, we informed you about 2 variants of our brake fluid reservoir filler cap with imprinted designation according to FMVSS 105-75 S. 5.4.3 asking you to examine them with regard to legality.

In your letter dated March 3, 1975 you rejected the version with contact blades displaced by 180 degrees because the fully insulated contact blades would partially obscure the statement. This design will therefore not reach the production stage. However, we intend to sell in the USA the version which only has two contact blades which are parallel to each other and are not insulated.

We believe that this design guarantees visibility of the statement by direct view which is required in S. 5.4.3. Furthermore we hold the view that this very important statement must still be visible after a 10 years' utilization in the vehicle.

According to our experience made with stickers or stamps, this requirement cannot be met since durable fixing of the warning statement cannot be ensured due to brake fluid running out and wetting of the sticker or stamp connected herewith as well as due to salt spray liquid and the like. In our opinion, such a warning statement which will not be legible after several service years, cannot be regarded as being within the meaning of this safety law.

We therefore kindly ask you to accept the stamping on the filler cap since this design ensures absolute and durable legibility. A further advantage would be that, when opening the filler cap, you automatically have to read the designation.

Finally we wish to refer to the 360 degrees turning capability of the contact blades so that the complete text can be seen at any time.

We kindly request you to re-examine our inquiry, and remain.

Yours truly,

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

(Beller)

(Dr. Strien)

Encl.:

3-04011-29

cc: P. Utans, Englewood

ID: nht75-1.16

DATE: 07/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Toyota's June 9, 1975, request for confirmation that S5.3.2 of Standard No. 10575, Hydraulic brake systems, requires a check of the brake system indicator lamp function only when the transmission shift lever (in the case of vehicles with automatic transmission) is in the "P" (park) position or the "N" (neutral) position. S5.3.2 specifies:

S5.3.2 All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" ("run") position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" ("run") and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

The wording of S5.3.2 requires a check of lamp function without regard to the position of the transmission shift lever whenever the ignition switch is in one of the positions described. In the case of vehicles equipped with automatic transmission, this language does not reflect the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) intent that the check function occur during the process of starting the vehicle.

To incorporate the intended meaning of the requirement into the standard, the NHTSA will shortly issue an interpretative rule that modifies the language of S5.3.2 by limiting the check function to the park and neutral positions for vehicles with automatic transmission.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 9, 1975

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 105-75

Dear Dr. Gregory:

We wish to request clarification of our interpretation of S5.3.2, Check of the Brake System Indicator Lamp Function, of FMVSS No. 105-75.

S5.3.2 reads as follows:

All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" ("run") position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" ("run") and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

Our question is whether or not the indicator lamp must be activated in vehicles with automatic transmission when the neutral safety switch is open.

The neutral safety switch is installed on vehicles with automatic transmission and is designed to prevent engine starting when the transmission gear selector is in one of the positions other than P (Park) and N (Neutral).

We believe that this nonactivation of the indicator lamp when the engine cannot be started enables us to design a more reliable system without sacrificing any safety benefits.

We would very much appreciate your informing us of your opinion of our interpretation at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

K. Nakajima -- Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office

ID: nht75-1.17

DATE: 10/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Inspection

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 29, 1975, letter to Mr. Vincent Esposito of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you indicate your desire that a "second independent means of stopping be made mandatory" on newly-manufactured motor vehicles.

Federal motor vehicle safety Standard No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75) becomes effective January 1, 1976, for passenger cars, and it establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems of these vehicles (copy enclosed). The test procedures for parking brake testing specify that the service brake control be released in testing the parking brake system. This has the practical effect of requiring a separate parking brake similar to that specified by the Iowa law you cited in your letter.

Federal motor vehicle safety Standard No. 121, (49 CFR 571.121) became effective January 1, 1975, for air-braked trailers and March 1, 1975, for air-braked trucks and buses (copy enclosed). It establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems of these vehicles. Section S5.6.4 of the standard states that "The parking brake control shall be separate from the service brake control."

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

As noted, Standard No. 105-75 and Standard No. 121 include requirements for the parking brake control aspect of braking performance. The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to this aspect of performance in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. If States were permitted to impose additional requirements in an area regulated by a Federal safety standard manufacturers would be confronted with an impossible task of compliance. This reasoning formed the basis of a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.

Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would be preempted by Standard No. 105-75 in the case of passenger cars, since the aspect of performance that would be affected is covered by the Federal standard. The same is true for motorcycles, covered by Standard No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems, and trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems, covered by Standard No. 121.

With regard to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles that are equipped with hydraulic brake systems, the NHTSA is in the process of developing a hydraulic brake standard. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance for consideration in developing the standard in this area.

SINCERELY,

May 29, 1975

Vincent J. Estosito, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Research and Development U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A letter from Mr. George W. Crise of Danville, Ohio that was sent to Mr. Robert F. Tyson, Director of Office of Planning and Programming, Des Moines, Iowa has been referred to this office.

It called our attention that the 1975 cars and trucks are being built without a second means of stopping feature as required by the laws of Ohio and other states.

I have enclosed a copy of the Iowa statutes pertaining to brake requirements and brake performance which clearly indicates that the Iowa law specifies two seperate means of applying the brakes. Each of which means shall be affective to apply the brakes to at least two wheels. If these two seperate means of applying the brakes are connected in any way, they shall be so constructed that failure of one part of the operating mechanism shall not leave the motor vehicle without brakes on at least two wheels.

I was not aware that the 1975 model cars and trucks were not equipped with the means to comply with the Iowa statute.

It is our desire that a second independent means of stopping be made mandatory on new motor vehicles.

Lowell E. Schellhase Supervisor Motor Vehicle Inspection

BRAKES

(Illegible Words) Brake requirements.

Every motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, when operated upon highway shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the (Illegible Words) of and to stop and hold such vehicle, including two separate (Illegible Word) the brakes, each of which means shall be effective (Illegible Word) the brakes to at least two wheels. If these two separate means applying the brakes are connected in any way, they shall be so (Illegible Word) that failure of any one part of the operating mechanism shall (Illegible Word) the motor vehicle without brakes on at least two wheels.

Every motorcycle, and bicycle with motor attached, when operated a highway shall be equipped with at least one brake, which may be (Illegible Word) by hand or foot.

Every trailer or semitrailer of a gross weight of three thousand (Illegible Word) or more, and every trailer coach or travel trailer of a gross (Illegible Word) of three thousand pounds or more intended for use for human (Illegible Word) shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the (Illegible Word) and to stop and hold such vehicle, and so designed as to be (Illegible Word) by the driver of the towing motor vehicle from its cab, or with (Illegible Word) brakes, and weight equalizing hitch with a sway control type approved by the commissioner of public safety. Every (Illegible (Illegible Words) travel trailer, or trailer coach of a gross weight of three thousands or more shall be equipped with a separate, auxiliary means (Illegible Word) the brakes on the semitrailer, travel trailer, or trailer from the cab of the towing vehicle. This Act shall apply to all and used travel trailers sold at July 1, 1971 and on all registered (Illegible Word) trailers after December 1, 1973. Trailers or semitrailers with (Illegible Word) or truck tractor need only comply with the brake requirements. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, every new motor (Illegible Word) trailer, or semitrailer hereafter sold in this state and operated the highways shall be equipped with service brakes upon all wheels every such vehicle with the following exceptions:

Any motorcycle. Any trailer or semitrailer of less than three thousand pounds gross (Illegible Word) need not be equipped with brakes.

Trucks and truck tractors having three or more axles need not brakes on the front wheels, except that such vehicles equipped two or more front axles shall be equipped with brakes on at least of such axles; provided that the service brakes of such vehicle (Illegible Word) with the performance requirements of section 321.431.

Only such brakes on the vehicle or vehicles being towed in a driveaway-towaway operation need be operative as may be necessary be necessary to insure compliance by the combination of vehicles with the performance requirements of section 321.431. The term "driveaway-towaway" operation as used in this subsection means any operation in which any motor vehicle or motor vehicles, new or used, constitute the commodity being transported, when one set or more of wheels of any such motor vehicle or motor vehicles are on the roadway during the course of transportation, whether or not any such motor vehicle furnishes the motive power.

Referred to in sections 321.181, 321.196, 321.210, 321.464, subsection 1

321.431 Performance ability

1. The service brakes upon any motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles, when upon dry asphalt or concrete pavement surface free from loose material where the grade does not exceed one percent, when traveling twenty miles an hour shall be adequate:

a. To stop such vehicle or vehicles having a gross weight of less than five thousand pounds within a distance of thirty feet.

b. To stop such vehicle or vehicles having a gross weight in excess of five thousand pounds within a distance of forty-five feet.

2. Under the above conditions the hand brake shall be adequate to hold such vehicle or vehicles stationary on any grade upon which operated.

3. Under the above conditions the service brakes upon a motor vehicle equipped with two-wheel brakes only, and when permitted hereunder shall be adequate to stop the vehicle within a distance of forty-five feet and the hand brake adequate to stop the vehicle within a distance of fifty-five feet.

4. All braking distances specified in this section shall apply to all vehicles mentioned, whether such vehicles are not loaded or are loaded to the maximum capacity permitted under this chapter.

5. All brakes shall be maintained in good working order and shall be so adjusted as to operate as equally as practicable with respect to the wheels on opposite sides of the vehicle.

(Illegible Words)

MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT

321.432 Horns and warning devices. Every motor vehicle when operated upon a highway shall be equipped with a horn in good working order and capable of emitting sound audible under normal conditions from a distance of not less than two hundred feet, but no horn or other warning device shall emit an unreasonably loud or harsh sound or a whistle. The driver of a motor vehicle shall when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation give audible warning with his horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.