```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 96274-96277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28376]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0246]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application 
for an Exemption From Polytech Plastic Molding, Inc., USDOT #1764512

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department 
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of exemption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
announces its decision to deny an application from Polytech Plastic 
Molding, Inc. (Polytech, USDOT #1764512) for an exemption to allow it 
to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with a module 
manufactured by Intellistop, Inc. (Intellistop). The Intellistop module 
is designed to pulse the required rear clearance, identification, and 
brake lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity to a higher-level 
lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds when the brakes are applied and 
then return the lights to a steady-burning state while the brakes 
remain engaged. The Agency has determined that Polytech did not 
demonstrate that it would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent 
to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved by the regulation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Sutula, Vehicle and Roadside 
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV, (202) 366-9209, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket 
number ``FMCSA-2022-0246'' in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' 
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first 
notice listed, click ``Browse Comments.''
    To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in 
the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the

[[Page 96275]]

docket number ``FMCSA-2022-0246'' in the keyword box, click ``Search,'' 
and chose the document to review.
    If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket 
online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT 
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or 
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant 
exemptions from certain parts of the FMCSRs if it ``finds such 
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, 
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the 
exemption.'' FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in 
the Federal Register and provide the public an opportunity to inspect 
the information relevant to the application, including the applicant's 
safety analysis, and an opportunity for public comment on the request 
(49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 381.315(a).
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted 
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a 
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be 
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of 
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application 
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving 
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is 
granted. The notice, if granted, must also specify the effective period 
and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption.

III. Background

A. Current Regulatory Requirements

    Section 393.25(e) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 
(FMCSRs) requires all exterior lamps (both required lamps and any 
additional lamps) to be steady burning, with certain exceptions not 
relevant here. Two other provisions of the FMCSRs--section 393.11(a) 
and section 393.25(c)--mandate that required lamps on CMVs meet the 
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 
in effect at the time of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108, issued by the U.S. 
Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), includes a requirement that installed brake 
lamps, whether original or replacement equipment, be steady burning.

B. Applicant's Request

    Polytech applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to allow it 
to operate CMVs, equipped with Intellistop's module. When the brakes 
are applied, the Intellistop module is designed to pulse the rear 
clearance, identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting 
intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds and 
then maintain the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) level of 
illumination for those lamps until the brakes are released and 
reapplied. Intellistop asserts that its module is designed to ensure 
that if the module ever fails, the clearance, identification, and brake 
lamps will default to normal OEM function and illumination.
    Polytech's application followed the Agency's October 7, 2022 (87 FR 
61133), denial of Intellistop's application for an industry-wide 
exemption to allow all interstate motor carriers to operate CMVs 
equipped with the Intellistop module. While the Agency determined that 
the scope of the exemption Intellistop sought was too broad to ensure 
that an equivalent level of safety would be achieved, the Agency 
explained that individual motor carrier applications for exemption may 
be more closely aligned with FMCSA authorities. Exemptions more limited 
in scope would allow the Agency to ensure compliance with all relevant 
FMCSA regulations because the individual exemptee would be easily 
identifiable and its compliance with applicable regulations could be 
monitored, thus providing a level of safety equivalent to compliance 
with 49 CFR 393.25(e).
    Polytech stated that previous research demonstrated that the use of 
pulsating brake-activated lamps increases the visibility of vehicles 
and should lead to a significant decrease in rear-end crashes. In 
support of its application, Polytech submitted several reports of 
research conducted by NHTSA on the issues of rear-end crashes, 
distracted driving, and braking signals.1 2 3 This same body 
of research was also referenced in Intellistop's industry-wide 
exemption application. Relying on these studies, Polytech stated that 
the addition of brake-activated pulsating lamp(s) will not have an 
adverse impact on safety and would likely maintain a level of safety 
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety achieved without the 
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See NHTSA Study--Evaluation of Enhanced Brake Lights Using 
Surrogate Safety Metrics https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811127.pdf; As part of the General Findings the NHTSA study 
report concluded that ``rear lighting continues to look promising as 
a means of reducing the number and severity of rear-end crashes.''
    \2\ See also NHTSA Study--Enhanced Rear Lighting and Signaling 
Systems https://tinyurl.com/y2romx76 or https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/task_3_results_0.pdf; As part of the conclusions 
NHTSA found that enhanced, flashing brake lighting ``demonstrated 
improvements in brake response times and other related performance 
measures.''
    \3\ See also NHTSA--Traffic Safety Facts https://tinyurl.com/yxglsdax or https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/tsf811128.pdf; which concluded that flashing brake lights were a 
promising signal for improving attention-getting during brake 
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at 
the beginning of this notice.

IV. Comments

    FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register 
on February 1, 2023, and asked for public comment (88 FR 6809). The 
Agency received 16 comments from the American Trucking Associations 
(ATA); Intellistop, Inc.; the National Truck Equipment Association 
(NTEA); the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI); and 12 
other commenters. Fifteen of the commenters favored the exemption 
application, while TSEI expressed concerns.
    TSEI reiterated comments it had previously made in support of the 
safety benefits of brake-activated warning lamps when used in 
conjunction with steady burning red brake lamps as well as its prior 
support of the exemption requests from Groendyke Transport, National 
Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC), and Grote Industries. Despite these 
previous expressions of support for the potential benefits of some 
brake warning lamp configurations, TSEI stated that it is concerned 
about any exemption permitting the pulsing of lamps that are currently 
required to be steady burning without a thorough consideration of 
safety data and research. TSEI stated that the aim of future rulemaking 
should be to ensure consistent application across all vehicles equipped 
with such pulsating lamps and recommended that the Agency engage in a 
formal rulemaking to amend Part 393 to allow for pulsating brake lamps.
    ATA supported Polytech's request and stated that enhanced rear 
signaling (ERS) can provide functionality beyond what traditional CMV 
lighting and reflective devices offer, including drawing attention to 
CMVs stopped ahead; increasing awareness of roadside breakdowns; 
notification of emergency

[[Page 96276]]

braking; and improving driver confidence from both vehicles. ATA also 
stated that, in addition to these safety benefits, ERS performance is 
superior to that of steady burning brake lamps in conditions of severe 
weather, taillight glare, and around infrastructure obstacles. 
Specifically, ATA noted that this ``request by Polytech presents 
another opportunity for the DOT to learn about the performance of ERS 
in real world applications.'' Further, ATA stated that ``[it] believes 
the exemption process is well-suited for these kinds of situations, 
where the DOT can monitor small, controlled deployments to learn about 
benefits and costs and gather important data to make sound judgments on 
a broader industry exemption or change in regulations.''
    ATA recommended that, if granted, the Agency provide clear guidance 
in the terms and conditions of the exemption grant to aid the Agency in 
monitoring the exemption for unintended consequences and aid the 
Applicant in understanding expectations for potential renewal of the 
exemption application. ATA further commented that FMCSA should work 
with industry to develop research efforts that examine the performance 
of ERS to supplement future DOT decisions on ERS technologies. and aid 
the Applicant in understanding expectations for potential renewal of 
the exemption application. ATA further commented that FMCSA should work 
with industry to develop research efforts that examine the performance 
of ERS to supplement future DOT decisions on ERS technologies.
    The NTEA supported a temporary exemption. The NTEA, however, 
expressed concern that some of its members who are manufacturers and 
alterers of motor vehicles receive requests from fleet operators to 
install brake-activated pulsating warning lamps on certain new vehicles 
they construct or modify. As manufacturers of new motor vehicles, NTEA 
members are required to certify these vehicles to applicable NHTSA 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). NTEA noted that FMCSA 
does not have the authority to exempt CMV manufacturers from their 
obligation to certify FMVSS compliance. It recommended the Agency 
clarify in the terms and conditions carrier, manufacturer, and repair 
facility responsibilities and limitations and the conditions under 
which such modifications may be made. NTEA specifically requested that 
FMCSA ``make clear that [this] exemption does not currently change any 
NHTSA regulations applying to the certification of federal motor 
vehicle safety standards,'' if it grants the exemption.
    Intellistop supported the Applicant's request for exemption. It 
commented that for over 20 years, multiple States have allowed pulsing 
or flashing of brake lamps. Intellistop also asserted many State driver 
training schools recommend tapping brakes to warn other motorists when 
a CMV is slowing or stopping. Intellistop stated that it is unlikely 
that other motorists would confuse the use of their module with the 
recommendation to tap brakes when a CMV is slowing or stopping, as 
``[s]eeing brake lights flash is a commonly communicated method to 
alert other drivers that a vehicle is slowing down or stopping.''
    Twelve additional comments were submitted in support of granting 
the exemption. These commenters believe that any technology that has 
been shown to reduce rear-end crashes should be allowed and cited 
various benefits of brake activated pulsating lamps, including (1) 
enhanced awareness that the vehicle is making a stop, especially at 
railroad crossings, and (2) increased visibility in severe weather 
conditions. Several commenters noted that 37 States currently allow 
brake lamps to flash. In addition, three commenters noted that the 
guidelines developed by the American Driver and Traffic Safety 
Education Association advise driving instructors to teach new drivers 
to pulse brake lamps when stopping to improve visibility.

V. FMCSA Equivalent Level of Safety Analysis

    Polytech petitioned FMCSA to grant an exemption from 49 CFR 
393.25(e)--requiring certain exterior lamps to be steady burning--to 
allow it to operate CMVs equipped with Intellistop's module. FMCSA has 
determined that in order for Polytech to operate vehicles in compliance 
with the FMCSRs, an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) must be accompanied 
by limited exemptions from 49 CFR 393.11(a) and 393.25(c), both of 
which mandate that required lamps on CMVs operated in interstate 
commerce must, ``at a minimum, meet the applicable requirements of 49 
CFR 571.108 (FMVSS No. 108) in effect at the time of manufacture of the 
vehicle.'' FMCSA grants exemptions only when it determines ``such 
exemption[s] would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent 
to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the 
exemption[s].''
    Rear-end crashes generally account for approximately 30 percent of 
all crashes. They often result from a failure to respond (or delays in 
responding) to a stopped or decelerating lead vehicle. Data on crashes 
that occurred between 2010 and 2016 show that large trucks are 
consistently three times more likely than other vehicles to be struck 
in the rear in two-vehicle fatal crashes.4 5 FMCSA is deeply 
interested in the development and deployment of technologies that can 
reduce the frequency, severity, and risk of rear-end crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (2012), Traffic Safety Facts--2010 Data; Large 
Trucks, Report No. DOT HS 811 628, Washington, DC (June 2012), 
available at: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811628.
    \5\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (2018), Traffic Safety Facts--2016 Data; Large 
Trucks, Report No. DOT HS 812 497, Washington, DC (May 2018), 
available at: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812497.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both FMCSA and NHTSA have examined alternative rear-signaling 
systems to reduce the incidence of rear-end crashes. While research 
efforts concluded that improvements in the incidence of rear-end 
crashes could be realized through certain rear-lighting systems that 
flash,\6\ the FMCSRs do not currently permit the use of pulsating, 
brake-activated lamps on the rear of CMVs. FMCSA believes that the two 
agencies' previous research programs demonstrate that rear-signaling 
systems may be able to ``improve attention getting'' to reduce the 
frequency and severity of rear-end crashes. Any possible benefit must 
be balanced against a possible risk of increased driver distraction and 
confusion. In balancing these interests, the Agency was compelled to 
deny the Intellistop application for exemption because the industry-
wide scope of the request was too broad for the Agency to effectively 
monitor for the potential risk of driver distraction or confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Expanded Research and Development of an Enhanced Rear 
Signaling System for Commercial Motor Vehicles: Final Report, 
William A. Schaudt et al. (Apr. 2014) (Report No. FMCSA-RRT-13-009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency acknowledges the limitations of the research studies 
completed to date and the overall data deficiencies in this area. 
Nonetheless, as noted in its Intellistop decision, the Agency 
recognizes that existing data do suggest a potential safety value in 
the use of alternative rear-signaling systems, generally. Specifically, 
FMCSA considered NHTSA's research concerning the development and 
evaluation of rear-signaling applications designed to reduce the 
frequency and severity of rear-end crashes via enhancements to rear-
brake lighting. The study examined enhancements for (1) redirecting 
drivers' visual attention

[[Page 96277]]

to the forward roadway (for cases involving a distracted driver) and 
(2) increasing the saliency or meaningfulness of the brake signal (for 
inattentive drivers).\7\ The research considered the attention-getting 
capability and discomfort glare of a set of candidate rear brake 
lighting configurations using driver judgments and eye-drawing metrics. 
The results of this research served to narrow the set of candidate 
lighting configurations to those that would most likely be carried 
forward for additional on-road study. Based on subjective participant 
responses, this research indicates some form of flashing or variation 
in brake light brightness may be more than two times more attention-
getting than the baseline, steady-burning brake lights for distracted 
drivers.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NHTSA Study--Evaluation of Enhanced Brake Lights Using 
Surrogate Safety Metrics https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811127.pdf.
    \8\ Ibid. While data demonstrated that brighter flashing lights 
were the most attention-getting combination for distracted drivers 
in this study, flashing lights with no increase in brightness were 
still more effective at capturing a distracted driver's attention 
than the baseline steady-burning brake lamps. Both look-up (eye 
drawing) data and interview data supported the hypothesis that 
simultaneous flashing of all rear lighting combined with increased 
brightness would be effective in redirecting the driver's eyes to 
the lead vehicle when the driver is looking away with tasks that 
involve visual load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While some of the data collected in the study may not be 
statistically significant, the study results nonetheless indicate that 
additional efforts to get drivers' attention when they are approaching 
the rear of a CMV that is stopping may be helpful to reduce driver 
distraction and, ultimately, rear-end crashes. This was among several 
reasons why researchers concluded that the promising nature of enhanced 
brake lighting systems warranted additional work and research. FMCSA 
believes the acquisition of relevant data through real-world monitoring 
is of critical importance as the Agency continues to seek new and 
innovative options for reducing crashes. This is particularly true 
given the data limitations noted in previous studies.
    Despite finding a potential safety value in the use of alternative 
rear-signaling technology, in the Intellistop decision the Agency 
determined that the data presently available did not justify an 
exemption to allow all interstate motor carriers to alter the 
performance of an FMVSS-required lighting device (i.e., stop lamps) on 
any CMV. In contrast, however, Polytech's application requests an 
exemption from the steady-burning brake lamp requirement for CMV 
operations for only a single interstate motor carrier. As FMCSA noted 
in its denial of Intellistop's industry-wide exemption application, 
individual motor carrier exemption requests more closely align with 
FMCSA and NHTSA authorities to ensure compliance with all other 
applicable regulations and with the safety performance of the smaller 
population of affected motor carriers. With an individual motor carrier 
exemption, the Agency can also more easily monitor compliance with 
terms and conditions intended to ensure operations conducted under the 
exemption do in fact provide an equivalent level of safety. Polytech's 
application demonstrates why this is particularly true, since the 
vehicles operated by Polytech under the exemption would be easily 
identifiable, and compliance with NHTSA's ``make inoperative'' 
prohibition and other related regulations could be readily checked.
    The Agency's decision to deny this exemption is based on the 
unavailablity of carrier and safety data. Polytech was issued a notice 
for ``Failure to complete biennial update'' on April 8, 2015, which 
deactivated its USDOT number. Any subsequent operations in interstate 
commerce were illegal. FMCSA is unable to ascertain how many CMVs 
operated by Polytech would have an Intellistop module installed, nor 
does the Agency have any safety data to compare the performance of 
Polytech against industry averages.
    Additionally, the Polytech website states that it maintains a small 
fleet of delivery vehicles to service a delivery area within the US and 
Canada. FMCSA notes that these deliveries must be occurring with 
delivery vehicles owned by Polytech that are not registered under a 
USDOT carrier number. Thus, Polytech is either using delivery vehicles 
that are not subject to the FMCSRs because they do not meet the 
definition of a CMV or is operating in violation of the FMCSRs. In the 
former case, FMCSA does not have jurisdiction to grant an exemption. In 
the latter case, nine years of illegal operations strongly suggests 
that Polytech is unlikely to comply with the terms and conditions of an 
exemption.

VI. Exemption Decision

a. Denial of Exemption

    FMCSA has evaluated Polytech's exemption application and the 
comments received. For the reasons given above, the Agency is denying 
Polytech's application for a temporary exemption.

Vincent G. White,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-28376 Filed 12-3-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
```