Interpretation ID: nht88-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER (SSF)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/ 13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: It is assumed that NHTSA standards relating to automobile brake lights require that brake lights be steady burning. If so, this would exclude a device such as the SSF.

However, I appeal for a variant interpretation which would allow use of the SSF for the following reasons:

1. The SSF would actuate only rarely - perhaps as little as 1% of all brake applications. The highway would not be "filled with blinking lights." Furthermore, actuation would be only momentary because heavy deceleration cannot be sustained for more tha n a few seconds. The deceleration level at which the SSF would actuate would be determined and preset during development and testing and the point of actuation would be set at a level which maintains the respect of drivers. This means rare actuation in only the final - but critical - segment of the deceleration envelope. In fact, I would request that NHTSA establish standards that specify factory-sealed units and standardize deceleration limits under which the SSF actuates to insure infrequent actuat ion.

2. The concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system.

3. Whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration. Any device which could prevent a significant percentage of high-speed rear-end crashes, ruptured gas tanks, and possible serious injuries or fatalities would seem to be in the best interest of NHTSA and in the best interests of American families traveling U.S. highways.

4. Development of the SSF would be expensive and I am not willing to undertake that expense unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model. I think this is a fair and reasonable reques t.