28674 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Notices 

the currently approved information 

collection: 

49 U.S.C. Sections 5310 and 5311— 

Capital Assistance Program for 

Elderly Persons and Persons with 

Disabilities and Nonurbanized Area 

Formula Program. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted 

before July 20, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure that your 

comments are not entered more than 

once into the docket, submit comments 

identified by the docket number by only 

one of the following methods: 

1. Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the U.S. Government electronic 

docket site. (Note: The U.S. Department 

of Transportation’s (DOT’s) electronic 

docket is no longer accepting electronic 

comments.) All electronic submissions 

must be made to the U.S. Government 

electronic docket site at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Commenters 

should follow the directions below for 

mailed and hand-delivered comments. 

2. Fax: 202–493–2251. 

3. Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Docket Operations, M–30, 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

4. Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Docket Operations, M–30, 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and docket number for this 

notice at the beginning of your 

comments. Submit two copies of your 

comments if you submit them by mail. 

For confirmation that FTA has received 

your comments, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Note that 

all comments received, including any 

personal information, will be posted 

and will be available to Internet users, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published April 

11, 2000, (65 FR 19477), or you may 

visit http://www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to read 

background documents and comments 

received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Background documents and comments 

received may also be viewed at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building, 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001 between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Gilbert F. Williams, Office of Program 

Management, (202) 366–0797 or Lorna 

R. Wilson, Office of Program 

Management, (202) 366–0893. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Interested parties are invited to send 

comments regarding any aspect of this 

information collection, including: (1) 

The necessity and utility of the 

information collection for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated 

burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the collected 

information; and (4) ways to minimize 

the collection burden without reducing 

the quality of the collected information. 

Comments submitted in response to this 

notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection. 

Title: 49 U.S.C. 5310 and 5311— 

Capital Assistance Program for Elderly 

Persons and Persons with Disabilities 

and Nonurbanized Area Formula 

Program (OMB Number: 2132–0561) 

Background: The Capital Assistance 

Program for Elderly Persons and Persons 

with Disabilities provides financial 

assistance for the specialized 

transportation service needs of elderly 

persons and persons with disabilities. 

The program is administered by the 

States and may be used in all areas, 

urbanized, small urban, and rural. The 

Nonurbanized Area Formula Program 

provides financial assistance for the 

provision of public transportation 

services in nonurbanized areas and this 

program is also administered by the 

States. 49 U.S.C. 5310 and 5311 

authorize FTA to review applications 

for federal financial assistance to 

determine eligibility and compliance 

with statutory and administrative 

requirements. Information collected 

during the application stage includes 

the project budget, which identifies 

funds requested for project 

implementation; a program of projects, 

which identifies subrecipients to be 

funded, amount of funding that each 

will receive, and a description of the 

projects to be funded; the project 

implementation plan; the State 

management plan; a list of annual 

certifications and assurances; and 

public hearings notice, certification and 

transcript. The applications must 

contain sufficient information to enable 

FTA to make the findings required by 

laws to enforce the program 

requirements. Information collected 

during the project management stage 

includes an annual financial report, an 

annual program status report, and preaward and post-delivery audits. The 

annual financial report and program 

status report provide a basis for 

monitoring approved projects to ensure 

timely and appropriate expenditure of 

federal funds by grant recipients. 

Respondents: State and local 

governments, business or other forprofit institutions, non-profit 

institutions, and small business 

organizations. 

Estimated Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 219 hours for each of the 

respondents. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

11,775 hours. 

Frequency: Annual. 

Issued: May 17, 2010. 

Ann M. Linnertz, 

Associate Administrator for Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12126 Filed 5–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0182] 

Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. LLC; Denial of 

Application for Renewal of Temporary 

Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard No. 108 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Denial of application for 

renewal of temporary exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to an 

application from Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. 

LLC (‘‘MBUSA’’), on behalf of itself and 

its parent corporation Daimler AG 

(‘‘Daimler’’), dated December 3, 2007, for 

the renewal of a temporary exemption 

from S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; 

Lamps, reflective devices, and 

associated equipment. The National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) granted MBUSA’s original 

petition for a temporary exemption on 

January 30, 2006. Based on the agency’s 

evaluation, NHTSA is denying the 

application from MBUSA for the 

renewal of the temporary exemption. 

DATES: The exemption from S5.5.10 of 

FMVSS No. 108 terminates on July 20, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Hines, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., W45–338, Washington, DC 

20590, telephone (202)–493–0245, 

facsimile (202)–366–7002. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Notices 28675 

1See S5.5.10 of 49 CFR 571.108. Turn signal 

lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus 

warning lamps shall be wired to flash. Headlamps 

and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for 

signaling purposes. Motorcycle headlamps may be 

wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower 

beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher 

intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with 

section S7.9. 

2We note that under 49 CFR 555.8(e), if an 

application for renewal of a temporary exemption 

that meets the requirements of § 555.5 has been 

filed not later than 60 days before the termination 

date of an exemption, the exemption does not 

terminate until the Administrator grants or denies 

the application for renewal. 

I. Background 

In a petition dated June 5, 2005, 

Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. LLC (MBUSA) 

petitioned the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), for a 

two-year temporary exemption from 

S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, 

reflective devices, and associated 

equipment. S5.5.10 specifies that with 

certain exceptions (not applicable to 

this MBUSA application) all lamps, 

including stop lamps, must be wired to 

be steady-burning.1 In order to evaluate 

a flashing stop lamp signaling system in 

the United States, MBUSA sought a 

temporary exemption from the ‘‘steadyburning’’ requirement as it applies to 

stop lamps. MBUSA stated that its 

flashing stop lamp system was currently 

available in Europe on a number of 

Mercedes vehicles. 

On January 30, 2006, NHTSA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice granting the MBUSA application 

for a temporary exemption, until 

January 23, 2008, from the requirements 

of S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108. In 

granting MBUSA’s request in the 

original grant, NHTSA made several 

determinations. The agency stated that 

MBUSA had met the requirements to 

receive an exemption under 49 CFR Part 

555(b), which permits exemptions from 

the FMVSS on the basis that the 

exemption would make easier the 

development of field evaluation of 

safety equipment. Specifically, the 

agency stated that based on information 

provided by MBUSA, it appeared the 

proposed lighting equipment provided 

at least an equivalent level of safety to 

the lighting equipment required by 

FMVSS No. 108. Furthermore, NHTSA 

decided that granting the request would 

be in the public interest, because the 

new field data obtained by MBUSA 

through the temporary exemption 

would enable the agency to make more 

informed decisions regarding the effect 

of the flashing stop lamp signaling 

systems on motor vehicle safety. In 

accordance with 49 CFR 555.6(b)(5), 

MBUSA was permitted to sell up to 

2,500 exempted vehicles in any twelvemonth period within the two-year 

exemption period. 

II. MBUSA Application Requesting 

Renewal of Temporary Exemption 

In a petition dated December 3, 2007, 

MBUSA petitioned NHTSA, on behalf of 

itself and its parent corporation Daimler 

AG (‘‘Daimler’’), for a renewal of the 

temporary exemption from S5.5.10 of 

FMVSS No. 108. According to MBUSA, 

the basis of the renewal was to further 

evaluate whether safety benefits could 

be identified through the allowance of 

flashing stop lamps on passenger 

vehicles in the United States. MBUSA 

stated that the preliminary results from 

the United States and Europe were 

positive and while limited, constituted 

a trend which could continue to be 

monitored. 

In its request for a renewal, MBUSA 

indicated that the company has ‘‘sold a 

total of approximately 2,870 12 cylinder 

S and CL class passenger vehicles in the 

United States between February 2006 

and August 2007,’’ and this number 

would slightly increase through the 

remainder of the exemption period, but 

remain below the maximum 5,000 

vehicle limit over 2 years. 

MBUSA’s application stated, 

‘‘Daimler’s plan for monitoring the 

experience of these vehicles focused on 

both dealer inputs and insurance 

claims.’’ Daimler received only one 

dealer input, but in early November 

2007 received input from an insurance 

company that insures about 20 percent 

of the vehicles that have been sold in 

the United States with the flashing stop 

lamp feature. MBUSA stated that the 

data collected from the insurance 

company at the time of the MBUSA 

application was promising. The 

company reported that with respect to 

416 vehicles equipped with the flashing 

stop lamp feature, there were a total of 

5 reported crashes and of these only one 

involved activation of the feature. It said 

there were a total of 94 reported crashes 

in a group of 4,507 vehicles without the 

flashing stop lamp feature. This, the 

company said, translates into a ‘‘crash 

ratio per month’’ for vehicles with the 

flashing stop lamp feature of 

11.44688645 as compared to a ratio of 

19.86328146 for vehicles without the 

feature. 

MBUSA also indicated that ‘‘data from 

Germany has also been promising.’’ 

While intending to monitor a German 

database with the acronym GIDAS and 

data from Germany’s Federal Statistical 

Office, MBUSA, in its application, 

indicated that there have thus far been 

no GIDAS investigations involving 

vehicles equipped with flashing stop 

lamps among the approximately 1,000 

in depth crash investigations performed 

for GIDAS every year. The company 

indicated it examined Federal Statistical 

Office crash statistics for 2005 and 2006. 

MBUSA stated, ‘‘Although subject to a 

significant degree of statistical scatter, 

data from the Federal Statistical Office 

for 2005 shows a decrease of rear impact 

compared to other Mercedes-Benz 

passenger cars, and an experience for 

2006 that shows a slight increase in rear 

impacts but which is also comparable to 

the experience with the control group 

without the feature.’’ 

III. Comments and Response Regarding 

the MBUSA Petition for Renewal of the 

Temporary Exemption 

NHTSA published a notice of receipt 

of the petition on November 25, 2008, 

and provided an opportunity for 

comment.2 The agency received five 

comments, one each from Nissan North 

America, Inc., Porsche Cars North 

America, Inc., American Honda Motors 

Co., Inc., Toyota Motor North America, 

Inc., and Ms. Barbara Sachau. The four 

motor vehicle manufacturers all 

supported the MBUSA application for 

renewal of the temporary exemption. 

Toyota Motor North America, Inc., also 

indicated that it has recently introduced 

its flashing stop lamp signaling system 

on Toyota and Lexus models in the 

European and Japanese markets. 

However, we note that none of the 

vehicle manufacturers presented data 

indicating that the use of the flashing 

stop lamp systems provided traffic 

safety benefits. A fifth comment from 

Ms. Barbara Sachau opposed the 

granting of the petition by stating that 

vehicle manufacturers should not 

determine regulatory policy involving 

vehicle safety. 

In January 2009, Daimler, through a 

submission by Hogan & Hartson LLP, 

supplied additional information related 

to the experience of flashing stop lamps 

in Germany. This submission referenced 

data samples representing half of policereported crashes in Germany for several 

years and characterized a preliminary 

positive safety trend, which was not 

able to be considered a stable result due 

to the low number of rear end crashes 

for Mercedes vehicles. In April 2010, 

MBUSA submitted an additional 

comment in support of its petition. It 

indicated that, to date, MBUSA/Daimler 

has sold approximately 4,700 vehicles 

with flashing stop lamps in the United 

States during the pendency of the 

exemption. It stated, however, that the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
28676 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Notices 

limited volume of vehicles permitted to 

be sold each year in the United States 

under this type of exemption creates a 

fundamental impediment to being able 

to use statistical analysis to show the 

impact of a crash avoidance feature 

controlled for other influences on the 

results. MBUSA stated that the data 

available in the United States cannot, 

due to the limited numbers of vehicles 

sold, statistically support in just a few 

years an analysis showing the number of 

crashes avoided because drivers were 

alerted to an emergency situation 

through flashing stop lamps. 

MBUSA claimed that it is clear that 

flashing stop lamps do not otherwise 

impair any of the important benefits of 

other rear lamps. It also claimed that 

data being developed in other markets 

does support the safety benefits of 

flashing stop lamps. 

In its April 2010 submission, MBUSA 

provided a further update to the 

information it had previously submitted 

concerning data from Germany. It stated 

that the data from Germany continues to 

indicate a positive trend, with crash 

rates for vehicles equipped with 

flashing stop lamps slightly lower than 

those for comparable vehicles without 

the feature. It also stated that since this 

feature is now available on all Mercedes 

vehicles sold in Germany and other 

markets, the trend is expected to be 

more defined and easier to interpret in 

the coming years. In addition, MBUSA 

noted that the exposure of vehicles with 

flashing stop lamps remains too low to 

derive statistical conclusions from the 

data. 

In addition, MBUSA stated that the 

United States should contribute to the 

growing body of international data on 

flashing stop lamps to the extent 

permitted by the regulation. It stated 

that a number of manufacturers are 

offering this feature in other markets in 

increasing numbers. MBUSA argued 

that the agency’s decision should not be 

based on whether the exemption would 

create a database that can conclusively 

demonstrate a statistical benefit, but 

should instead base its decision on 

being able to contribute to the growing 

body of international data with 

experience from the United States. It 

stated that while the data set will be 

necessarily small because of the 

regulatory limitations, the experience is 

necessary to show that the limited 

exposure in the United States remains 

consistent with the more robust 

experience found in other markets. 

MBUSA also argued that flashing stop 

lamps can contribute to the reduction of 

crashes associated with distracted 

driving, and that continuing the 

exemption would contribute to this 

objective. 

IV. Agency Analysis and Decision 

After carefully considering the 

MBUSA application for renewal of the 

temporary exemption from S5.5.10 of 

FMVSS No. 108 and the public 

comments, we have decided to deny the 

petition. The reasons for this decision 

are explained below. 

We note that prior to the submission 

of MBUSA’s original petition for 

temporary exemption, NHTSA had 

denied that company’s petition for 

rulemaking to permanently amend 

FMVSS No. 108 to allow flashing brake 

signaling systems. Among the reasons 

for the denial was the need for 

additional data on safety benefits of 

flashing brake lamps. 

In granting the original petition for 

temporary exemption in January 2006, 

we stated that we believed a temporary 

exemption was in the public interest 

because the new field data obtained 

through the temporary exemption 

would enable the agency to make more 

informed decisions regarding the effect 

of flashing brake signaling systems on 

motor vehicle safety. We also noted that 

the agency was conducting research 

concerning enhanced rear signaling. 

We noted, however, that some of the 

benefits associated with signal lamps 

relate to standardization. We stated that 

we had not made any determination as 

to whether it would be appropriate to 

permit flashing stop lamps more 

generally. 

In considering MBUSA’s application 

for renewal of the temporary exemption, 

we have evaluated whether a renewal 

would be in the public interest. As part 

of this, we have considered whether the 

additional field data that would be 

obtained as a result of a renewed 

exemption would enhance, in a 

meaningful way, the agency’s ability to 

make more informed decisions in this 

area. Based on the available 

information, we have concluded that the 

answer is no. 

First, after reviewing the material in 

the renewal request, we are concerned 

that MBUSA has not established a 

rigorous crash evaluation and data 

collection program in the U.S. for its 

flashing stop lamp system. As such, we 

believe that a continuation of the 

current efforts would not yield 

additional insight into the anticipated 

benefits of such a rear signaling system. 

In its application for renewal, the 

petitioner included the following 

paragraph: 

‘‘Daimler’s plan for monitoring the 

experience of these vehicles focused on 

both dealer inputs and insurance 

claims. MBUSA received only one 

dealer input, but in early November 

2007 received input from an insurance 

company that insures about 20% of the 

vehicles that have been sold in the 

United States with the flashing stop 

lamp feature. The data collected to date 

from the insurance company is 

promising. The crash ratio per month of 

these vehicles with the flashing stop 

lamp feature is 11.44688645; whereas 

the crash ratio per month of the same 

vehicles without the feature was 

19.86328146.’’ 

A footnote to this paragraph provided 

by MBUSA in its application explained, 

‘‘There were a total of 5 reported crashes 

with regard to vehicles with the 

emergency braking feature, of 416 

vehicles, and a total of 94 reported 

crashes with regard to the 4507 vehicles 

without emergency brake assist. Daimler 

has since learned, based on more 

detailed information, that at least 4 of 

the 5 vehicles involved in the crashes 

with the feature did not involve 

activation of the feature, indicating an 

even lower crash per month ratio.’’ 

NHTSA made the following 

determinations regarding the data and 

information presented. First, the agency 

is struck by the low level of 

participation by what would seem to be 

critical players in a research crash data 

collection effort, specifically insurance 

carriers and dealers. The agency is 

concerned about the level of effort 

devoted to the research plan on which 

the original 2-year temporary exemption 

from S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 was 

based. Beyond this, there is no 

indication in the data presented, based 

on only 20 percent of the vehicles in the 

U.S. equipped with the flashing stop 

signaling system, as to the nature of the 

crashes involved. It is suggested from 

the information provided by MBUSA 

that four of the five crashes discussed 

earlier were not rear end collisions and 

that one of the crashes occurred because 

it was the only case in which the 

flashing stop lamp signaling system was 

activated. In any event, there is not 

enough information presented in 

MBUSA’s request for renewal of its 

exemption to know. The nature of all 

the crashes involved is important 

information to know in assessing the 

data presented. 

It does not appear, based upon the 

data provided by MBUSA, that there is 

a robust program to evaluate acceptance 

of the flashing stop lamps among the 

American public or whether risk might 

be transferred to vehicles without the 

flashing stop lamps by acting as a 

distraction from other on-road events. 

The agency notes that MBUSA indicated 

that it had, on the date of its application 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Notices 28677 

for extension, received input from only 

one dealer. 

Also, MBUSA did not make it 

possible for NHTSA to evaluate its 

suggested claims of potential safety 

benefits of its flashing stop lamp system 

because its application for renewal and 

the data provided to NHTSA to date 

does not clearly identify how it will 

appropriately track applicable rear end 

collisions in the United States, and does 

not include an explanation of the 

comparisons cited in its application. 

Without definitions of the comparison 

groups, raw data, and a description of 

the calculations made, the MBUSA 

claim of potential safety benefits is not 

supported. 

Moreover, even if MBUSA were to 

develop a more robust evaluation 

program, it is not clear how the 

additional vehicles produced as a result 

of an extended exemption would 

provide significant additional data on 

safety benefits of flashing stop lamps. 

As indicated above, MBUSA stated in 

its recent comments that the data 

available in the United States cannot, 

due to the limited numbers of vehicles 

that can be sold under a temporary 

exemption, statistically support in just a 

few years an analysis showing the 

number of crashes avoided because 

drivers were alerted to an emergency 

situation through flashing stop lamps. 

The petitioner argued that the 

agency’s decision should not be based 

on whether the exemption would create 

a database that can conclusively 

demonstrate a statistical benefit, but 

NHTSA should instead base its decision 

on being able to contribute to the 

growing body of international data with 

experience from the United States. It 

stated that while the data set will be 

necessarily small because of the 

regulatory limitations, the experience is 

necessary to show that the limited 

exposure in the United States remains 

consistent with the more robust 

experience found in other markets. 

However, MBUSA has already sold 

approximately 4700 vehicles with 

flashing stop lamps in the United States 

during the pendency of the existing 

exemption, and it has not provided any 

specific explanation as to how a two 

year extension resulting in potentially 

up to 5000 additional vehicles in this 

country would result in significant 

additional meaningful data concerning 

safety benefits of flashing brake lamps. 

Also, it is unclear how extending the 

exemption in this country would 

facilitate the analysis of the German 

data, especially given the difference in 

the sizes of the relevant vehicle 

populations. 

MBUSA also mentioned the fact that 

the flashing stop lamp signaling system 

is permitted in Europe in support of an 

extension of its temporary exemption 

from S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108. While 

NHTSA is always interested in actions 

taken in other parts of the world, there 

is nothing presented in MBUSA’s 

request for renewal relating to safety 

benefits and crash reduction data 

provided to the European regulatory 

authorities. We note the data from 

Germany referenced in MBUSA’s 

renewal request is not any more 

effective in shedding light on the 

effectiveness of the flashing stop lamp 

signaling system in preventing rear end 

collisions. The request notes that the 

‘‘GIDAS database’’, which includes 

‘‘about 1,000 in depth crash 

investigations each year’’ thus far has 

not included investigations of vehicles 

equipped with the flashing stop lamp 

signaling system. No conclusion can be 

drawn from this fact. The request 

indicated that crash statistics have been 

received for 2005 and 2006 from the 

Federal Statistical Office. The crash data 

is ‘‘subject to a significant degree of 

statistical scatter,’’ MBUSA says, but 

maintains the data ‘‘shows a decrease of 

rear impacts compared to other 

Mercedes-Benz passenger cars, and an 

experience for 2006 that shows a slight 

increase in rear impacts but which is 

also comparable to the experience with 

the control group without the feature.’’ 

Again, this information is 

inconclusive. There is no indication of 

the sample size involved and the 

number of crashes on which MBUSA 

makes its assertions as to the impact of 

the flashing stop lamp signaling system. 

The agency does not know what 

MBUSA means when it says the crash 

data is subject to a ‘‘significant degree of 

statistical scatter’’ and the impact it has 

on the conclusion suggested by MBUSA 

or the likelihood that the larger sample 

will be enough for statistically 

significant conclusions. 

MBUSA also argued that flashing stop 

lamps can contribute to the reduction of 

crashes associated with distracted 

driving, and that continuing the 

exemption would contribute to this 

objective. However, while NHTSA is 

interested in potential safety benefits of 

enhanced rear signaling, MBUSA has 

not shown how extending the 

exemption would result in significant 

meaningful data concerning safety 

benefits of flashing stop lamps. 

After considering the available 

information, we have concluded that 

MBUSA has not provided adequate 

justification for renewal of the 

exemption. It has not shown that the 

additional field data that would be 

obtained as a result of a renewed 

exemption would enhance, in a 

meaningful way, NHTSA’s ability to 

make more informed decisions 

concerning anticipated benefits of 

flashing brake lamps. Moreover, as 

noted earlier, some of the benefits 

associated with signal lamps relate to 

standardization. We have therefore 

concluded that it would not be in public 

interest to renew this exemption, and 

we are denying the application. 

In order to allow MBUSA adequate 

time to make the necessary production 

changes, we are making this decision to 

deny the request effective 60 days after 

publication of this notice. 

Issued: May 17, 2010. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12190 Filed 5–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket ID FMCSA–2010–0115] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Applications; Diabetes Mellitus 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA). 

ACTION: Notice of applications for 

exemptions from the diabetes mellitus 

standard; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of 

applications from 37 individuals for 

exemptions from the prohibition against 

persons with insulin-treated diabetes 

mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial 

motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate 

commerce. If granted, the exemptions 

would enable these individuals with 

ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate 

commerce. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 21, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

bearing the Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA– 

2010–0115 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES