```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 105675-105680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30860]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, industry-wide 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; [email protected].

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 (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 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.

[[Page 105676]]

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 liquid-burning 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 ``Cab-Mounted 
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 Cab-Mounted 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 closed-
circuit 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FMCSA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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);

[[Page 105677]]

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 ADS-equipped CMVs. AVIA also commented that 
it believes the proposed beacons not only address needs of ADS-equipped 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Among 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 single-point 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,

[[Page 105678]]

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 Cab-Mounted 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 FMCSR-specified 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

[[Page 105679]]

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 cab-mounted 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 beacon-equipped 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Appendix 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.
    \6\ Table 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
industry-wide 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

[[Page 105680]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Applicants 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
```