96274 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Notices 

Current list of eligible crash types Final list of new and updated eligible crash types 

(for crashes occurring on or after December 1, 2024) 

21. Any other type of crash, not listed above, where a CMV was involved and a video demonstrates the sequence of events of the 

crash. 

V. Other Comments on Changes Not 

Proposed 

In addition to the changes proposed 

in the April 2023, notice, six 

commenters (Jeff Loggins, Steve Davis, 

AIST Safety Consulting, Knight-Swift 

Transportation, Siskiyou 

Transportation, Inc., and TMC 

Transportation) requested that FMCSA 

expand the eligibility requirements for 

the crash type ‘‘CMV was struck because 

another motorist was driving in the 

wrong direction.’’ The current eligibility 

guide states that the crash must have the 

following elements, ‘‘The vehicle in the 

crash was driving in the wrong direction 

(e.g., northbound in the southbound 

lanes) AND the vehicle was completely 

in the wrong lane (i.e., not partially 

across the center line).’’ All six 

commenters want FMCSA to consider 

crashes where the other vehicle was 

partially across the center line as 

eligible under this crash type. Steve 

Davis made the recommendation, ‘‘My 

recommendation is that if any portion of 

the oncoming vehicle crosses the center 

line and strikes our CMV resulting in a 

DOT Recordable accident, then it 

should be deemed as non-preventable 

on the part of the motor carrier.’’ AIST 

Safety Consulting would like FMCSA to, 

‘‘Broaden eligibility for Wrong Direction 

cases . . . Consider cases where a 

vehicle is partially in the opposite lane, 

making it impossible for a CMV to avoid 

a collision without swerving 

dangerously.’’ The comments from 

Knight-Swift Transportation included 

the suggestion, ‘‘Wrong way accidents— 

we would like the CPDP amended to 

allow for wrong way accident to allow 

DataQ submission when: 

1. Not Fully Over the Centerline—The 

vehicle that struck the CMV was not 

completely over the center line when 

the crash occurred. 

2. Opposing Direction Sideswipe— 

The vehicle that struck the CMV was 

not completely over the center line 

when it side-swiped the CMV. 

Three commenters would like FMCSA 

to offer educational resources for 

carriers and drivers submitting requests 

to CPDP. Joshua Anderson would like 

additional fields when submitting an 

RDR to help users select the appropriate 

crash type. AIST Safety Consulting 

recommends adding a glossary to the 

Eligibility Guide that is available at 

https://fmcsa.dot.gov/crashpreventability-determination-program. 

And ATA wants enhanced resources for 

carriers that explain the RDR process, 

including minimum documentation 

requirements. 

FMCSA Response 

The current eligibility guide states 

that the crash must have the following 

elements, ‘‘The vehicle in the crash was 

driving in the wrong direction (e.g., 

northbound in the southbound lanes) 

AND the vehicle was completely in the 

wrong lane (i.e., not partially across the 

center line).’’ In response to the 

commenters, the Agency is staying with 

the current criteria for the ‘‘wrong 

direction’’ crash type and will NOT 

allow for partial crossing of the center 

line. As stated above, the crash types 

that are eligible for the CPDP are less 

complex crash events that do not 

require extensive expertise to review. 

However, the addition of the new crash 

type, where a CMV was involved and a 

video demonstrates the sequence of 

events of the crash, may allow for 

partial crossing of the center line types 

of crashes. 

FMCSA will continue to update the 

Eligibility Guide to ensure it provides 

the most up-to-date criteria for each 

crash type. All the resources published 

on the https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

crash-preventability-determinationprogram website will be updated to 

ensure submitters have the resources to 

make a complete request. 

VII. Next Steps 

FMCSA will post information on the 

CPDP website https://fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

crash-preventability-determinationprogram notifying submitters of the date 

when FMCSA will accept submissions 

under the new and updated crash types 

set forth in this notice. 

Vincent G. White, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28377 Filed 12–3–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

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; MCPSV@dot.gov. 

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 (NewerOlder),’’ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Notices 96275 

1See 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.’’ 

2See 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.’’ 

3See 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. 

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.123 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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
96276 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Notices 

4U.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. 

5U.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. 

6Expanded 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). 

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. 

Both FMCSA and NHTSA have 

examined alternative rear-signaling 

systems to reduce the incidence of rearend 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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Notices 96277 

7See 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. 

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

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 rearsignaling 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1