Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Notices 105675 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, 

Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. 

Department of State (telephone: 202– 

632–6471; email: section2459@

state.gov). The mailing address is U.S. 

Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street 

NW (SA–5), Suite 5H03, Washington, 

DC 20522–0505. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

foregoing determinations were made 

pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 

985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 

12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign 

Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 

1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 

6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 

Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, 

Delegation of Authority No. 236–3 of 

August 28, 2000, and Delegation of 

Authority No. 523 of December 22, 

2021. 

Nicole L. Elkon, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional 

and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department 

of State. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30946 Filed 12–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2023–0071] 

Parts and Accessories Necessary for 

Safe Operation; Application for an 

Exemption From Waymo LLC (USDOT 

#3000336) and Aurora Operations, Inc. 

(USDOT #3441156) 

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 or the 

Agency) publishes its decision to deny 

an application from Waymo LLC 

(Waymo, USDOT #3000336) and Aurora 

Operations, Inc. (Aurora, USDOT 

#3441156) (together, Applicants), 

requesting an exemption from certain 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations (FMCSRs) related to 

requirements to place specific types of 

warning devices at prescribed locations 

around commercial motor vehicles 

(CMVs) stopped on the traveled portion 

or shoulder of a highway for any cause 

other than necessary traffic stops and 

requirements that lamps on CMVs be 

steady burning. Applicants requested 

that they and ‘‘other similarly situated 

companies’’ be permitted to instead use 

‘‘Cab-Mounted Warning Beacons’’ 

(including ‘‘variants’’ and ‘‘any 

configuration of similar effectiveness’’) 

when the CMV is operated by a Level 

4 Automated Driving System (ADS) 

either without a human on board or 

with a human on board when testing the 

warning beacons. Safety is FMCSA’s 

highest priority. The Agency embraces 

USDOT’s Innovation Principles, 

including adapting as technology 

changes and supporting technologies 

that further our policy goals. While the 

application and the public comments 

show promise for alternative warning 

devices to provide safety benefits for 

warning motorists of a stopped CMV 

under certain conditions, the present 

application does not demonstrate how 

Applicants or other proposed exempted 

parties would ensure an equivalent or 

greater level of safety than would be 

achieved absent the exemption. The 

application does not provide sufficient 

details about proposed alternative 

devices, and the limited data presented 

does not support a likely equivalent 

level of safety for a national, industrywide exemption for all companies 

operating autonomous CMVs. If 

Applicants can reasonably address the 

reasons for the denial, Applicants may 

resubmit an exemption application. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Sutula, Vehicle and Roadside 

Operations Division, Office of Carrier, 

Driver, and Vehicle Safety, FMCSA; 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; (202) 366– 

9209; MCPSV@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, go to 

www.regulations.gov, insert the docket 

number ‘‘FMCSA–2023–0071’’ 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 

docket number ‘‘FMCSA–2023–0071’’ in 

the keyword box, click ‘‘Search,’’ and 

choose 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 to grant 

exemptions from FMCSRs where the 

Agency finds that ‘‘such exemption 

would likely achieve a level of safety 

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the 

level that would be achieved absent 

such exemption.’’ 49 U.S.C. 31136(e); 49 

U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). 

An exemption application must 

provide specific information relevant to 

the scope of the exemption sought 

including, but not limited to, the 

provisions from which the person 

requests exemption, the reason the 

exemption is needed, the time period 

during which the requested exemption 

would apply, an analysis of the safety 

impacts the requested exemption may 

cause, and the specific countermeasures 

the person would undertake to ensure 

an equivalent or greater measure of 

safety than would be achieved absent 

the requested exemption. 49 U.S.C. 

31315(b)(5); 49 CFR 381.310. 

Upon receipt of an exemption request, 

FMCSA must publish a notice of the 

request in the Federal Register and 

provide the public an opportunity to 

inspect the applicant’s safety analysis 

and any other relevant information 

known to the Agency, and to comment 

on the request. See 49 U.S.C. 

31315(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 381.315(a). The 

Agency reviews the application and any 

public comments submitted and 

determines whether to grant or deny the 

request. 49 CFR 381.315(b). The Agency 

must publish its decision in the Federal 

Register. Id. If the request is granted, the 

decision will identify the name of the 

person or class of persons granted the 

exemption, the provisions from which 

the person is exempt, the effective 

period, and the terms and conditions of 

the exemption. 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6)(B); 

49 CFR 381.315(c)(1). If the request is 

denied, the Agency will publish the 

name of the person denied the 

exemption and the reasons for such 

denial. 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6)(C); 49 CFR 

381.315(c)(2). A granted exemption may 

be renewed, upon request, for 

subsequent 5-year periods. 49 U.S.C. 

31315(b)(2); 49 CFR 381.300(b). If an 

exemption request is denied, and the 

applicant can reasonably address the 

reason for the denial, the Agency may 

allow the applicant to resubmit the 

application. 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(3); 49 

CFR 381.317. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
105676 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Notices 

1FMCSA considered all comments in the docket 

received through October 31, 2024. FMCSA notes 

that it received two comments from the Association 

for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International but is 

treating those submissions as one comment because 

they are substantively identical. See https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FMCSA-2023-0071- 

0020 and https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ 

FMCSA-2023-0071-0037. 

III. Background 

A. Current Regulatory Requirements 

Under the FMCSRs 

Applicants request an exemption from 

certain FMCSRs related to requirements 

for placing warning devices around a 

stopped CMV, requirements that 

exterior lamps be steady burning, and 

requirements that specific types of 

warning devices be used. 

The applicable FMCSRs require the 

driver of a CMV stopped on the traveled 

portion or the shoulder of a road for any 

cause other than a necessary traffic stop 

to activate hazard warning signal 

flashers and place required warning 

devices as soon as possible but within 

ten minutes, at specified locations 

behind and in front of the stopped CMV. 

49 CFR 392.22(b). They also specify 

placement of warning devices in certain 

circumstances, such as during daylight 

hours, or where devices may be 

obstructed from view (e.g., when 

stopped within 500 feet of a curve or the 

crest of a hill). Id. 

The FMCSRs also require that all 

exterior lamps be steady burning, with 

exceptions not relevant here. 49 CFR 

393.25(e). 

Finally, the FMCSRs specify the types 

and number of warning devices to be 

used for stopped vehicles, namely 3 

bidirectional emergency reflective 

triangles, or at least 6 fusees or 3 liquidburning flares. Other warning devices 

may be used in addition to required 

devices, as long as they do not reduce 

the effectiveness of required devices. 49 

CFR 393.95(f). 

B. Applicants’ Requested Exemption 

Applicants request an exemption on 

behalf of themselves and ‘‘similarly 

situated companies’’ from requirements 

of 49 CFR 392.22(b), 393.25(e), and 

393.95(f). Application (App.) at 1. They 

request that CMVs operated by a Level 

4 ADS be permitted to use ‘‘CabMounted Warning Beacons’’ instead of 

FMCSR-specified warning devices when 

the vehicles are operating either without 

a human on board, or with a human on 

board when testing the warning 

beacons. Id. 

Applicants define Cab-Mounted 

Warning Beacons as ‘‘cab-mounted 

warning devices, consisting of both 

forward- and rearward-facing amber 

flashing lights mounted at a height 

above the upper edge of the sideview 

mirrors.’’ App. at 2. The proposed 

warning beacons are amber colored and 

meet certain Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) requirements. Id. at 7– 

8. These warning beacons would ‘‘flash 

at a different rate than the required 

hazard warning signal flashers to 

increase conspicuity of the stopped 

CMV,’’ which Applicants contend 

would not interfere with or impair the 

effectiveness of hazard warning signal 

flashers. Id. at 11. Applicants propose 

that at least one rearward-facing light be 

mounted on each side of the cab ‘‘at 

some point on or above the upper edge 

of the sideview mirrors and below the 

top edge of the cab,’’ and that at least 

one forward-facing light be mounted 

‘‘similarly high’’ on the front of the cab. 

Id. at 9–10. Applicants provide a 

diagram illustrating areas where the 

beacons ‘‘could be mounted,’’ noting 

that the description ‘‘purposely allows 

for flexibility with regard to the 

mounting location of the beacons so 

long as the beacons are positioned at a 

sufficiently high point on the cab.’’ Id. 

at 10 n.19. Applicants propose that 

‘‘[t]he exemption, if granted, should 

permit any configuration of similar 

effectiveness.’’ Id. at 10. 

Applicants state that the exemption is 

needed because compliance with 49 

CFR 392.22(b) is ‘‘not feasible for 

autonomous CMVs without a human on 

board,’’ and because proposed CabMounted Warning Beacons are not 

steady burning (as required under 49 

CFR 393.25(e)) and are not among the 

approved warning devices under 49 

CFR 393.95(f). Applicants posit that if 

the exemption is not granted, the 

deployment of autonomous CMVs 

without a human driver on board will 

be ‘‘sufficiently impeded,’’ and that 

alternatives to the exemption would be 

unnecessarily costly. App. at 14–15. 

C. Research Submitted by Applicants in 

Support of Proposed Beacons 

To support the asserted equivalent 

level of safety of Cab-Mounted Warning 

Beacons, Applicants submitted two 

reports on testing certain beacon 

‘‘variants.’’ App. at 9. Waymo sponsored 

a study by the Virginia Tech 

Transportation Institute (VTTI) 

(‘‘Stopped Automated Commercial 

Motor Vehicle Warning Device 

Surrogates,’’ prepared for Waymo, LLC, 

by Erin Mabry, Susan Soccolich, Kary 

Meissner, Josh Radlbeck, and Andy 

Schaudt, VTTI, August 1, 2022 (the 

Waymo study)). Aurora conducted what 

it calls a ‘‘naturalistic study’’ 

(‘‘Naturalistic Study for Warning Device 

Equivalency,’’ prepared by Aurora 

Operations, Inc., October 2022 (the 

Aurora study)). Id. at 11, apps. B–C. 

The Waymo study evaluated whether 

drivers detected, recognized, and 

responded appropriately to certain 

beacons while traveling on a closedcircuit test track in daylight and 

nighttime conditions and encountering 

a stopped CMV at three different 

locations (on the shoulder, in the lane 

ahead, and on the right shoulder after a 

curve). App. at 12. The study compared 

driver reactions to Cab-Mounted 

Warning Beacons with driver reactions 

to warning triangles and concluded that 

study participants subjectively preferred 

beacons over triangles for 

communicating the presence of a 

stopped CMV. Waymo study at 20. The 

study was conducted in Virginia with 

48 participants (24 daylight, 24 

nighttime). Id. at 7–8. The report does 

not describe the weather conditions. 

The Aurora study observed the 

reactions of over 7,000 passing vehicles 

to the presence of certain beacons 

versus warning triangles. App. at 13. 

The study was conducted on public 

roads with passing motorists who were 

unaware of the study and traveling at 

highway speeds when they encountered 

a stopped CMV on the right shoulder. 

Id., Aurora study at 3. Aurora used 

sensors mounted on the stopped CMV to 

collect data about motorist responses. 

Aurora study at 8. Aurora reports that 

similar proportions of motorists 

responded to the presence of beacons as 

they did to warning triangles, and that 

among those responding, responses 

occurred at similar distances and 

motorists increased lateral separation in 

similar proportions. App. at 13–14. The 

Aurora study was conducted in Texas 

on Interstate 45 between Exits 258 and 

249. Aurora study at 5. The report does 

not describe the weather conditions. 

Applicants posit that the two reports 

confirm that the proposed beacons 

achieve a level of safety equivalent to or 

greater than the level achieved with 

FMCSR-specified warning triangles 

placed at prescribed distances. App. at 

14. 

IV. Overview of Public Notice and 

Comments 

FMCSA published in the Federal 

Register on March 9, 2023, notice of the 

exemption application and the 

opportunity for public comment. 88 FR 

14665. In response, the Agency received 

51 public comments.1

Twenty-five comments generally 

supported granting the application, 

including comments submitted by the 

Association for Uncrewed Vehicle 

Systems International (AUVSI); the 

American Trucking Associations (ATA); 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Notices 105677 

2Among other FMCSA efforts to promote the safe 

testing and deployment of ADS-equipped CMVs, a 

proposed rulemaking, ‘‘Motor Carrier Operation of 

Automated Driving Systems (ADS)-Equipped 

Commercial Motor Vehicles’’ (RIN 2126–AC17), is 

currently underway. 

the Autonomous Vehicle Industry 

Association (AVIA); the Consumer 

Technology Association (CTA); 

Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.; 

Daimler Trucks of North America 

(Daimler); Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc. 

(Hirschbach); Kodiak Robotics (Kodiak); 

the Motor and Equipment 

Manufacturers Association (MEMA); 

PACCAR Inc.; Stack AV Co. (Stack); 

TechNet; Uber Freight US, LLC (Uber 

Freight); the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce; Volvo Autonomous 

Solutions NA, Inc. (VAS); Waabi 

Innovation US, Inc. (Waabi); Werner 

Enterprises (Werner); CWK Consulting, 

LLC; the Texas Trucking Association 

(TXTA); the Institute for Safer Trucking 

(IST); Isuzu Motors Limited, Isuzu 

Technical Center of America, Inc. 

(Isuzu); the Montana Trucking 

Association (MTA); the Allegheny 

Conference on Community 

Development (Allegheny Conference); 

the National Fraternal Order of Police 

(NFOP); and an individual commenter. 

One commenter, HAAS Alert, was 

neutral on the proposal, although it 

supported updating current standards 

for hazard warnings and notifications. 

Twenty-five comments generally 

expressed concerns with granting the 

exemption, including comments 

submitted by the Amalgamated Transit 

Union, AFL–CIO (ATU); AWM 

Associates, LLC; the Motor Vehicle 

Lighting Supplier Safety Institute 

(MVLSSI); the Owner Operator 

Independent Drivers Association 

(OOIDA); the Towing and Recovery 

Association of America, Inc. (TRA); the 

Transportation Trades Department, 

AFL–CIO (TTD); the Transport Workers 

Union of America, AFL–CIO (TWU); the 

Truck Safety Coalition (TSC)/Citizens 

for Reliable and Safe Highways 

(CRASH)/Parents Against Tired 

Truckers (PATT) (joint comment); 

eleven individual commenters; and six 

anonymous commenters. 

Generally, commenters supporting the 

exemption cited the need for a warning 

system that does not require human 

intervention to place warning devices 

for ADS-operated CMVs and the need 

for continued development of 

automated technologies. AVIA, for 

example, argued that the exemption 

application proposes a new safety 

solution that would avoid the need for 

human intervention when a Level 4 or 

5 ADS-equipped CMV is stopped on the 

highway. This position was echoed by 

comments from ATA; AUVSI; CTA; 

CWK Consulting, LLC; Daimler; 

Hirschbach; Kodiak; PACCAR Inc.; 

Stack; TechNet; Uber Freight; the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce; VAS; Waabi; 

and Werner. These commenters stated 

that the exemption would help address 

regulatory burdens that they believe are 

hindering the deployment of ADSequipped CMVs. AVIA also commented 

that it believes the proposed beacons 

not only address needs of ADSequipped vehicles but also could 

enhance safety if applied to traditional 

CMVs by reducing risks to drivers who 

would otherwise be required to exit 

their vehicles to place warning devices. 

IST expressed concern over the 

‘‘significant risk’’ to truck drivers 

placing warning triangles (particularly 

in conditions of poor visibility or 

adverse weather). Waabi also 

emphasized that it is ‘‘extremely 

dangerous’’ to require human drivers to 

‘‘get out of a CMV, walk into or next to 

oncoming traffic (including at night and 

during severe weather events), and 

proceed 100 feet beyond the vehicle, 

and then physically deploy a warning 

triangle or flare.’’ ATA and Kodiak 

commented that the exemption would 

be a positive step toward improving 

overall roadway safety. Similar 

comments from TXTA, Isuzu, MTA, 

IST, and Allegheny Conference noted 

that this would be a step toward 

enhancing or improving ‘‘roadway 

safety’’ for ‘‘autonomous trucks and 

other road users.’’ NFOP stated that 

granting the exemption would be ‘‘a 

step toward collecting data that can 

support a broader rulemaking effort to 

update FMCSA’s current regulation on 

warning devices for all CMVs.’’ 

Commenters generally opposed to 

granting the exemption cited concerns 

about the effectiveness of the proposed 

beacons and the lack of evidence in 

Applicants’ studies to address certain 

safety concerns. ATU, for example, 

commented that there was no data 

demonstrating how the beacons would 

perform where there are blind corners 

blocking the sight lines of oncoming 

vehicles, where a vehicle is turned on 

its side, or if there is a fire or electrical 

problems. Other efficacy concerns 

included visibility of the beacons due to 

a single location, or based on roadway 

topography or alignment of the truck 

tractor and trailer; electrical failure 

causing failure of the beacons; and 

desensitization of the public to flashing 

beacons or confusion about what 

beacons mean (ATU, OOIDA, four 

individual commenters, one anonymous 

commenter, MVLSSI, and TRA). 

MVLSSI, OOIDA, TSC/CRASH/PATT, 

and trade unions (TWU, ATU, and TTD) 

also commented that Applicants 

presented insufficient evidence to 

demonstrate an equivalent level of 

safety, noting that more testing would 

be needed, with TSC/CRASH/PATT 

emphasizing the lack of performance 

standards for ADS-equipped CMVs.2

Two individuals commented that the 

exemption, if granted, should apply to 

all CMVs, not just ADS-equipped CMVs. 

TWU and others called for FMCSA or 

DOT to consider larger studies on 

alternative warning devices to 

potentially update existing standards 

rather than granting an exemption from 

the current safety standards, and TTD 

similarly noted that the Applicants’ 

request would have been more 

appropriate as a petition for rulemaking. 

Some commenters believed that the 

exemption request was too broad, 

seeking an exemption that would apply 

to an entire class of CMVs, rather than 

limited to those CMVs under the control 

of the applicants (see, e.g., ATU, TWU, 

and TSC/CRASH/PATT), with some 

noting that many of these operators 

currently use different systems and 

processes. Commenters also noted that 

the cited testing does not account for the 

safety case for a broader spectrum of 

autonomous and non-autonomous 

CMVs operated by different entities. 

Applicants submitted a 2.5-page 

response to public comments, dated 

April 19, 2023 (Applicant’s Response). 

They responded to certain commenter 

concerns regarding curves and hills by 

stating that the Waymo and Aurora 

studies evaluated beacons on or after 

curves, and that Aurora’s study assessed 

beacons beyond the crest of a hill. They 

argue that warning beacons’ positioning 

high on the cab made them effective. 

Regarding commenters’ concerns about 

electrical failure, Applicants responded 

that beacons ‘‘can and should be 

designed and installed to avoid a singlepoint power failure’’ (such as by 

establishing two power domains to draw 

from, although they encouraged FMCSA 

to remain technology neutral as to how 

they are designed). They also noted that 

existing warning devices are not 

immune from failure. They further 

contended that the proposed beacons 

would activate immediately and thereby 

provide an immediate warning, unlike 

specified warning devices, which may 

take up to ten minutes to be placed. 

Applicants did not submit additional 

evidence to support these positions. 

V. Exemption Decision 

Safety is the Agency’s highest 

priority. The Agency embraces the 

United States Department of 

Transportation’s Innovation Principles, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
105678 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Notices 

3The Aurora study indicates that one light is 

temporarily mounted on each side of the cab at 

‘‘approximately one foot behind the sideview 

mirror’’ and ‘‘approximately four inches above the 

top of the sideview mirror.’’ Aurora study at 3 n.3. 

including adapting as technology 

changes and supporting technologies 

that further our policy goals. Having 

carefully evaluated Applicants’ 

exemption application, supporting 

documentation, the public comments, 

and the safety implications of 

Applicants’ request, the Agency denies 

the application. While the application 

and public comments suggest promise 

for alternative warning devices in some 

circumstances—and the Agency 

encourages continued innovation and 

analyses in this area—given the scope of 

the exemption sought, including the 

proposed flexible standard for CabMounted Warning Beacons and the 

proposed national and industry-wide 

exemption for all companies operating 

autonomous CMVs, FMCSA finds that 

the application does not demonstrate 

that granting the exemption will likely 

achieve a level of safety that is 

equivalent to, or greater than, the level 

of safety that would be achieved absent 

the exemption. As discussed below, the 

broad exemption is not supported by the 

data presented and lacks necessary 

monitoring controls to ensure highway 

safety. FMCSA notes that this decision 

does not preclude Applicants or others 

from seeking an exemption to use better 

defined warning beacons for specified 

companies in particular locations, as 

one of the bases of the Agency’s 

decision here is the broad reach of 

Applicants’ request. 

A. Applicants Do Not Provide Sufficient 

Details About the Proposed Alternative 

Devices and Do Not Demonstrate an 

Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety for 

Those Devices, Particularly for a 

Nationwide and Industry-Wide 

Exemption 

To obtain an exemption from the 

FMCSRs, an applicant must provide 

evidence allowing the Agency to 

conclude that the exemption would 

‘‘likely achieve a level of safety that is 

equivalent to, or greater than, the level 

that would be achieved absent such 

exemption.’’ 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). An 

applicant likewise must include 

sufficient details about the specific 

countermeasures they would take to 

ensure an equivalent or greater measure 

of safety. 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(5); 49 CFR 

381.310(c)(5). The present application 

fails to do so. 

1. Applicants Do Not Provide Sufficient 

Details About the Proposed Alternative 

Warning Devices 

Applicants propose Cab-Mounted 

Warning Beacons consisting of ‘‘at least 

one’’ rearward-facing light mounted ‘‘at 

some point on or above the upper edge 

of the sideview mirrors’’ and ‘‘at least 

one’’ forward-facing light. App. at 9–10. 

Applicants provide a diagram of where 

beacons ‘‘could be mounted,’’ proposing 

that the description ‘‘purposely allows 

for flexibility with regard to the 

mounting location.’’ Id. at 10 n.19. 

Applicants further propose that the 

exemption should ‘‘permit any 

configuration of similar effectiveness.’’ 

Id. at 10. As several commenters noted, 

the proposed devices are not specific 

enough to ensure an equivalent level of 

safety. The variability of the description 

also does not readily enable the Agency 

to monitor the exemption terms and 

conditions. See 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(8). 

2. Applicants Do Not Demonstrate an 

Equivalent Level of Safety Supporting 

the Full Scope of the Exemption Sought 

Applicants’ submitted studies do not 

support an equivalent level of safety for 

Cab-Mounted Warning Beacons for the 

full scope of the exemption sought. 

First, the studies at best address 

beacons mounted at 110 inches from the 

ground (Waymo study at 6) and at an 

undetermined height (Aurora study),3

and with the particular placement and 

operational constraints described in the 

studies. They do not address the 

visibility of beacons for the full range of 

the ‘‘flexible’’ standard that Applicants 

propose, or ‘‘any configuration of 

similar effectiveness.’’ 

Second, while Applicants contend 

that both studies demonstrated similar 

overall reactions from highway users 

driving by a stopped CMV for the 

proposed Cab-Mounted Warning 

Beacons compared to warning triangles, 

the studies provided insufficient data to 

demonstrate an equivalency in driver 

responses. For example, as the Waymo 

study acknowledged, unfamiliarity of 

the warning beacons may have 

contributed to motorist behavior. 

Waymo study at 20. And while 

Applicants rely on the study to 

demonstrate that warning beacons were 

‘‘easier to see’’ or ‘‘preferred’’ by drivers, 

the study also showed that for 

respondents who answered which 

device was better for signaling a stopped 

truck, 8 out of 10 selected warning 

triangles over beacons. Waymo study at 

55. Aurora’s study notes that some 

motorist responses may have occurred 

wholly outside the sensor range (Aurora 

study at 8)—an indication that the study 

may not have captured enough data 

points to compare whether drivers 

responded earlier to one warning device 

over the other. 

The studies also failed to fully 

support whether motorist behavior was 

causally based on seeing warning 

beacons rather than a stopped CMV. 

One distinction between FMCSRspecified warning triangles and the 

proposed beacons is that warning 

triangles are placed at the rear of a 

stopped CMV (in addition to the front), 

while the proposed beacons are located 

only at the front of the cab—raising the 

possibility that drivers see the rear of a 

stopped CMV before they see the 

beacons. While Applicants contend that 

the beacons are visible from behind the 

vehicle, the evidence was inconclusive. 

For example, the studies failed to 

demonstrate through photos or videos 

the point at which a beacon or warning 

triangle was visible or recognized by a 

motorist, or the point at which a 

stopped CMV came into view. Changes 

in driver behavior were observed in 11 

out of 12 observations with warning 

beacons (as opposed to 12 out of 12 for 

triangles) (Waymo study at 16, Table 3); 

still, the evidence does not clearly 

demonstrate whether drivers reacted to 

the CMV or the warning device. For 

example, neither study establishes a 

baseline condition that measured driver 

reaction to a stopped CMV with no 

warning device deployed, a concern 

raised by MVLSSI in its comments. 

Applicants’ contentions of equal or 

higher overall responses to warning 

beacons, moreover, fail to acknowledge 

circumstances where beacons performed 

worse than triangles. Aurora’s study, for 

example, concluded that a warning 

beacon elicited a 2.75% higher 

percentage of responses than warning 

triangles overall. Aurora study at 24, 

Table 3.2.1–1. The same table, however, 

shows a lower percentage responded 

overall to warning beacons than to 

warning triangles in five of eight 

(62.5%) scenarios in the table, including 

daytime tests at left curve and straight 

locations, and nighttime tests at crest, 

right curve, and straight locations. Id. 

Although the differences in percentage 

responding were small, the overall 

worse performance for beacons in the 

majority of categories does not support 

Applicants’ conclusion that the 

proposed beacons performed at a level 

equal to or better than warning triangles. 

Another limitation of the studies was 

the limited data. The Aurora study 

tested for 8 minutes with warning 

beacons, replaced the warning beacons 

with warning triangles, and then tested 

the next 8 minutes with warning 

triangles. Aurora study at 5–6. This 

leads to 16 minutes of total testing time 

for both warning devices for each 

roadway geometry (straight, curve left, 

curve right, and beyond the crest of a 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Notices 105679 

4See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ 

FMCSA-2023-0071-0036. See also https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FMCSA-2023-0071- 

0038 (comment from HAAS Alert noting that ‘‘all 

line-of-sight alerting solutions are inherently 

limited by their relative visibility,’’ which can be 

significantly reduced by weather conditions, road 

curvature, hills, and other factors). 

5Appendix C of the Waymo study (Waymo study 

at 25) includes a map with a star at the curve 

location that did not appear from the map to be a 

very sharp curve. In Aurora’s study, it was also 

difficult to determine whether the curves were 

sharp from the maps. For example, when examining 

the left curve shown in Appendix A (at coordinates 

32.3089, –96.593) in Google maps, it appears this 

location has a posted speed limit of 75 mph. 

FMCSA notes a sharp curve would have a lower 

posted speed limit, depending on the curve’s 

radius. 

6Table 3 (Waymo study at 16), clearly shows that 

only 9 out of 12 drivers detected the scenario with 

the beacon at location III for daytime runs. The 

driver detection data for nighttime runs at that same 

location is unclear, however, since Table 17 (Id. at 

41) shows non-response for the button press for 2 

beacons and 1 triangle, with 2 non-response 

observations occurring at location III and 1 

occurring at location II, making it difficult to 

determine whether the beacons were missed 

16.67% of the time (2 out of 12) or 8.33% of the 

time (1 out of 12) at the curve. 

hill), with the tests repeated in daytime 

and nighttime lighting conditions. The 

total test time is just over 2 hours for all 

devices across all scenarios, with only 

around 64 minutes of total testing time 

for the proposed beacons across 8 

scenarios. The Waymo study was 

limited to 48 participants. Waymo study 

at 7. This limited amount of data does 

not support an equivalent level of 

safety, particularly considering the 

scope of the exemption requested, 

which is nationwide for all current and 

future autonomous CMV operators 

during the exemption period. 

Third, the studies do not demonstrate 

an equivalent level of safety across 

sufficiently varied circumstances. Many 

commenters expressed particular 

concern with the visibility of proposed 

warning beacons when a CMV is 

stopped along a curve. For example, 

TTD stated that the requirement in 49 

CFR 392.22(2)(iv) is in place ‘‘to account 

for the simple geometry of curves, hills, 

and other obstructions that can make 

cab lights invisible to oncoming 

traffic.’’ 4 FMCSA agrees that road 

curvatures or elevations may affect 

visibility of a beacon located in a fixed 

position on the cab of a CMV, and that 

placement of warning devices at 

FMCSR-prescribed distances away from 

the CMV allows for improved visibility 

in such situations. FMCSA notes that, 

due to the different placement of the 

devices, the range of the warning 

provided by a cab-mounted beacon to an 

approaching motorist would need to be 

longer than the range of the warning 

provided by an appropriately placed 

warning triangle because the source of 

the warning (the location at which the 

warning originates) would be farther 

from the approaching motorist for a cabmounted beacon than for a warning 

triangle placed behind a vehicle. 

FMCSA also expects the radius of the 

curve could affect the range of the 

warning beacon in a similar fashion to 

how curves affect the range of adaptive 

driving beams, as described in 49 CFR 

571.108 (FMVSS No. 108) under Table 

XXII—Adaptive Driving Beam System 

Test Matrix. 

The studies also gave insufficient 

information about the nature of the 

curves in the studies,5 making it 

difficult to understand whether the 

curves were sufficiently representative 

of the types of curves (e.g., slight vs. 

truly blind, sharp curves) the beaconequipped autonomous CMVs would 

encounter across the United States, and 

therefore difficult to conclude that there 

is an equivalent level of safety on 

curves. Neither study presented photos 

or videos demonstrating the point of 

view of an approaching motorist 

entering or exiting the curve. Moreover, 

the Waymo study supports that the 

beacons performed significantly worse 

than warning triangles at a curve during 

daytime runs. Specifically, at truck 

exposure location III (shoulder after 

curve), 9 out of 12 drivers detected and 

recognized the truck with the beacon,6

while 12 out of 12 did so with the 

warning triangles. This finding is salient 

to examine, considering that locations 

with curves would logically present a 

challenging scenario for fixed beacons 

versus triangles whose placement can be 

adjusted based on curves. 

Fourth, while Applicants seek an 

exemption for CMVs operating in a 

Level 4 autonomous mode (App. at 9), 

Applicants did not support that vehicles 

operating in an autonomous mode will 

stop and engage flashers and beacons 

similar to the CMVs in the studies. For 

example, in the Waymo study, it 

appears that CMVs began in a stopped 

position, while in the Aurora study, a 

human driver apparently stopped the 

vehicle, and in both studies, a human 

apparently activated both the hazard 

warning flashers and the beacon 

devices. Waymo study at 7, 9; Aurora 

study at 5–6; App. at 11 n.21. Thus, 

neither study demonstrated that CMVs 

operating in Level 4 autonomous mode 

will effectively engage hazard lamps 

and/or proposed beacons, or the timing 

with which they would do so, and how 

that timing compares to timing required 

under the FMCSRs. And while 

Applicants contend that they will be 

able to address electrical failure, 

Applicants did not provide evidence 

regarding how they will do so. 

Applicants’ request to exempt a class of 

unspecified carriers using unspecified 

equipment on unspecified vehicles only 

further undermines the claimed likely 

equivalent level of safety. 

Applicants and some commenters 

noted potential safety benefits to human 

drivers. Indeed, in their ‘‘safety impact’’ 

analysis, Applicants state that the 

exemption would increase safety ‘‘most 

notably by eliminating the need for a 

human to enter the roadway to place 

traditional warning devices’’ and that 

while the application applies to CMVs 

without a human driver, the safety 

rationale could apply to conventional 

CMVs. App. at 9. The exemption 

request, however, is not directed at such 

circumstances—Applicants request that 

the exemption be permitted where there 

is no human driver or where drivers are 

used only for testing. App. at 4. Indeed, 

Applicants contend that no human 

drivers will be affected. App. at 9. While 

FMCSA agrees that there is promise for 

improving safety for CMV drivers if they 

do not need to leave a vehicle to place 

warning devices, neither Applicants nor 

the public comments presented data to 

allow FMCSA to find an equivalent or 

higher level of safety when using the 

proposed beacons for carriers operating 

CMVs with human drivers, and 

Applicants did not request an 

exemption to cover such operations. 

Fifth, there are other limitations of the 

application to support the scope sought. 

For example, the studies do not address 

visibility of proposed beacons for 

vehicle orientations with varying trailer 

heights, such as (for example) a truck 

tractor pulling a flatbed trailer versus a 

van type trailer that is taller than the 

truck tractor. As certain commenters 

observed, Applicants did not address 

how proposed beacons might perform in 

scenarios such as a CMV on its side. 

Applicants likewise seek a nationwide 

exemption based only on limited data 

from a test track in Virginia and a 

portion of Interstate 45 in Texas 

between Exits 258 and 249, and without 

establishing how warning beacons 

might perform in different geographical 

or weather conditions across the 

country. 

Sixth, should Applicants (or future 

applicants) provide sufficient details 

about proposed alternative warning 

devices, FMCSA notes that industrywide exemptions are not the norm and 

FMCSA grants them only on a very 

limited basis. Applicants present little 

data on the effect such a broad 

exemption would have on overall safety, 

particularly considering the unknown 

group of autonomous CMV operators at 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
105680 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Notices 

7Applicants do not provide the names of motor 

carriers that would be responsible under the 

exemptions or the estimates—even for their own 

operations—of the number of drivers and CMVs 

that would be operated under the exemption. See 

49 CFR 381.310(b) and (c). Such information would 

assist the Agency in assessing the equivalent level 

of safety for operations with the proposed 

alternative devices. 

issue, the unknown fleet sizes, and 

potential differences among them in 

implementation and operations.7

FMCSA also is concerned that operators 

will assume that their own similar but 

varying versions of Cab-Mounted 

Warning Beacons are a ‘‘configuration of 

similar effectiveness’’ (App. at 10) and 

therefore are exempted, without such 

operators applying for and supporting 

the safety of an exemption. Thus, at this 

stage, the record before the Agency does 

not show that Applicants’ petition for 

an industry-wide exemption adequately 

demonstrates the required threshold, of 

likely to achieve an equivalent level of 

safety. 

VI. Conclusion 

For the reasons given above, the 

Agency denies the application for an 

exemption. 

FMCSA notes that the Agency may 

accept a resubmission of an exemption 

application that has been denied, 

provided that the applicant can 

reasonably address the reason for the 

denial. 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(3); 49 CFR 

381.317. 

Vincent G. White, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30860 Filed 12–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2024–0029] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure 

Disorders 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of applications for 

exemption; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of 

applications from 12 individuals for an 

exemption from the prohibition in the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons 

with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or 

any other condition that is likely to 

cause a loss of consciousness or any loss 

of ability to control a commercial motor 

vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate 

commerce. If granted, the exemptions 

would enable these individuals who 

have had one or more seizures and are 

taking anti-seizure medication to 

operate CMVs in interstate commerce. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 27, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by the Federal Docket 

Management System Docket No. 

FMCSA–2024–0029 using any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov/, insert the docket 

number (FMCSA–2024–0029) in the 

keyword box and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, 

choose the only notice listed, and click 

on the ‘‘Comment’’ button. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building 

Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: West Building 

Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 

SE, Washington, DC 20590–0001 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

instructions on submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical 

Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590–0001, (202) 366–4001, 

fmcsamedical@dot.gov. Office hours are 

8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. If you 

have questions regarding viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, 

contact Dockets Operations, (202) 366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

notice (Docket No. FMCSA–2024–0029), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. FMCSA recommends that 

you include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that FMCSA can contact you if there 

are questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

FMCSA-2024-0029. Next, choose the 

only notice listed, click the ‘‘Comment’’ 

button, and type your comment into the 

text box on the following screen. Choose 

whether you are submitting your 

comment as an individual or on behalf 

of a third party and then submit. 

If you submit your comments by mail 

or hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. FMCSA will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period. 

B. Viewing Comments 

To view comments go to 

www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket 

number (FMCSA–2024–0029) in the 

keyword box and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, 

choose the only notice listed, and click 

‘‘Browse Comments.’’ 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– 

0001, 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. 

C. Privacy Act 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments 

from the public on the exemption 

request. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov. As described in 

the system of records notice DOT/ALL 

14 (Federal Docket Management 

System), which can be reviewed at 

https://www.transportation.gov/ 

individuals/privacy/privacy-act-systemrecords-notices, the comments are 

searchable by the name of the submitter. 

II. Background 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 

31315(b), FMCSA may grant an 

exemption from the FMCSRs for no 

longer than a 5-year period 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 such exemption. The 

statutes also allow the Agency to renew 

exemptions at the end of the 5-year 

period. FMCSA grants medical 

exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2- 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES