Notice2022-21875
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Intellistop, Inc.
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 7, 2022
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Abstract
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces its decision to deny Intellistop, Inc.'s (Intellistop) application for an exemption to allow motor carriers to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with Intellistop's module which, when brakes are applied, pulses the required rear clearance, identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds and then returns the lights to a steady-burning state. Intellistop has not shown that an industry-wide exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety provided by the regulation.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 194 (Friday, October 7, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61133-61137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21875]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0048]
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From Intellistop, Inc.
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to deny Intellistop, Inc.'s (Intellistop)
application for an exemption to allow motor carriers to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with Intellistop's module
which, when brakes are applied, pulses the required rear clearance,
identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity
to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds and then
returns the lights to a steady-burning state. Intellistop has not shown
that an industry-wide exemption would likely
[[Page 61134]]
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of
safety provided by the regulation.
DATES: This decision is applicable October 7, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV, (202) 366-0676, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
I. Supplememtary Information
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents,
comments submitted, or the notice requesting public comments on the
exemption application, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> at any time or visit
Dockets Operations, Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 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. The on-line Federal document
management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
The docket number is listed at the beginning of this notice.
II. Legal Basis
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the FMCSRs if it ``finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the
exemption.'' FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register and provide the public an opportunity to inspect
the information relevant to the application, including any safety
analyses that have been conducted, and an opportunity for public
comment on the request (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 381.315(a)).
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. Granted exemptions may be
renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).
III. Current Regulatory Requirements
Section 393.25(e) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) requires all exterior lamps (both required lamps and any
additional lamps) be steady-burning, except for turn signal lamps,
hazard warning signal lamps, school bus warning lamps, amber warning
lamps or flashing warning lamps on tow trucks and CMVs transporting
oversized loads, and warning lamps on emergency and service vehicles
authorized by State or local authorities. This FMCSR is consistent with
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps,
reflective devices, and associated equipment'' (49 CFR 571.108) issued
by the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), which, among other things, requires that
brake lamps, whether original or replacement equipment, be steady
burning.
IV. Intellistop's Application for Exemption
Intellistop applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to allow
all motor carriers to operate CMVs equipped with Intellistop's module
which, when the brakes are applied, pulses the rear clearance,
identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity
to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds and then
maintains the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) level of
illumination for those lamps until the brakes are released and
reapplied. Intellistop stated that if the module ever fails, the
clearance, identification, and brake lamps will default to normal OEM
function and illumination.
Intellistop stated that previous research has demonstrated that the
use of pulsating brake-activated lamps increases visibility of vehicles
and thus has the ability to reduce rear-end crashes with commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs). Intellistop further stated that the use of the
Intellistop module would allow motor carriers to maintain operational
safety levels and implement more efficient and effective operations.
Intellistop noted that FMCSA has previously granted similar, but
not identical, temporary exemptions \1\ to the National Tank Truck
Carriers Inc. (NTTC) (85 FR 63643, Oct. 8, 2020), Grote Industries, LLC
(Grote) (85 FR 78918, Dec. 7, 2020) (Grote), and Groendyke Transport
Inc. (Groendyke) (84 FR 17910, April 26, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ During the pendency of Intellistop's exemption application
FMCSA also granted a similar exemption to Waste Management Inc.
(Waste Management) (See 87 FR 3166, Jan. 20, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its application, Intellistop also referred to several studies
conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
on the issues of rear-end crashes, distracted driving, and braking
signals. Intellistop stated that the addition of brake-activated
pulsating lamp(s) will not have an adverse impact on safety, and that
adherence to the terms and conditions of the exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of
safety achieved without the exemption.
A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at
the beginning of this notice.
V. Public Comments
FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register
on June 14, 2021, and asked for public comment (86 FR 31552). The
Agency received comments from the Transportation Safety Equipment
Institute (TSEI), the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), the
American Trucking Associations (ATA), Tankstar USA Inc. (Tankstar), the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) and 15 other stakeholders and
individuals. Sixteen organizations and individuals supported approving
the exemption application, three individuals or organizations opposed
the exemption application, and one organization was noncommittal but
offered comments.
ATA supported granting the exemption. ATA stated that:
Consistent with DOT's reports and research, National Tank Truck
Carriers (NTTC) and Grote Industries have successfully petitioned
the agency to recognize the value of enhanced rear signaling (ERS)
for improving safe operations when compared with traditional
standard brake lamps. ERS can provide functions beyond what
traditional commercial motor vehicle (CMV) lighting and reflective
devices offer, including: attention to CMVs stopped ahead; awareness
of roadside breakdowns; emergency braking; and driver confidence
from both vehicles. In addition to these safety benefits, ERS
performance is superior to steady burning brake lamps in severe
weather conditions, tail light glare and around infrastructure
obstacles. ERS also reduces the chances of damage to both vehicles
involved in a rear-end crash, which improves commercial operation
uptime, CSA scores for the CMV owner, and traffic inconvenience.
Tankstar operates a small group of trucking and bulk transport
companies
[[Page 61135]]
and supported Intellistop's request. Tankstar said that its companies
had experienced a number of rear end collisions. It also noted that the
34 percent reduction in rear end crashes reported by Groendyke while
using pulsating brake lamps supported the Intellistop request. Tankstar
pointed out that the Intellistop flash rate of 4 times in 2 seconds
does not match the higher intensity strobing lamps of emergency vehicle
lighting systems, and the application should not be denied on the
ground of possible confusion with such vehicles. TankStar stated that
it is testing the Intellistop module on a few of its trailers, noting
that the testing has been very successful in reducing crashes. Tankstar
stated that this type of safety product should have the ability to be
retrofitted, so as to impact highway safety immediately, and be
affordable.
TSEI urged the Agency to deny the petition and offered the
following comment:
The requirement that stop lamps and marker/clearance lamps be
steady burning is longstanding. We do not believe FMCSA should make
the leap from pulsating brake-activated warning or auxiliary lamps
to pulsating required lamps without a thorough consideration of
safety data and research[footnote omitted] with the aim of setting
standards (including those related to flash patterns) to ensure
consistency across all vehicles equipped with such lamps. . . . In
our comments to FMCSA related to prior exemption petitions, TSEI
acknowledged the safety benefits of brake-activated warning lamps
when used in conjunction with steady burning red brake lamps and we
have generally supported exemption requests for such lamps. However,
we also expressed concerns regarding the proliferation of multiple
lamps on the rear of commercial vehicles in the absence of
consistent standards related to number, color, intensity, flash
patterns, duty cycle, location, and other characteristics.
The CVSA commented that it is opposed to allowing red brake-
activated pulsating lamps because pulsating red lamps are typically
associated with emergency vehicles. It stated that allowing red
pulsating lamps on the rear of commercial motor vehicles may negatively
impact the driving public's recognition and response to emergency
vehicles. CVSA further noted that many state laws prohibit nonemergency
vehicles from having pulsating red lights. CVSA stated that it would
support allowing motor carriers to equip commercial motor vehicles with
amber brake-activated pulsating lights, but not red brake-activated
pulsating lights, because of what it believes are likely unintended
safety impacts related to emergency vehicles. A different commenter
supported granting Intellistop's application specifically for red
pulsing lights, and not amber pulsing lights, based on the commenter's
review of studies on the effect of different wavelength lights (i.e.
different color lights) on human vision and crash data for vehicles
currently equipped with different colored flashing lights.
The NTEA was noncommittal as to the exemption. However, NTEA noted,
``In an effort to clarify the distinctions between the FMCSA authority
over motor carrier operations and those of NHTSA over the manufacturer
of new motor vehicles and the make inoperative prohibitions to used
vehicle modifications, we respectfully request that FMCSA include in
any notices granting such exemptions a brief description of the
difference between FMCSA and NHTSA responsibilities and the limitations
to the involved entities and conditions under which they may perform
these modifications.''
One individual opposed the petition, noting the potential for
driver confusion or distraction, while fourteen stakeholders and
individuals submitted brief comments in support of granting the
exemption. The commenters who supported the exemption generally
asserted that this technology may be able to reduce rear-end crashes
and should therefore be allowed, citing various benefits of brake
activated pulsating lamps, including (1) enhanced awareness that the
vehicle is making a stop, especially at railroad crossings, (2)
anecdotal reduction in rear-end crashes within commenter fleets,
presumably due to increased reaction time for following drivers, and
(3) increased visibility near rail-road crossings and in severe weather
conditions. Two commenters noted that flashing lights are used on other
vehicles, like utility trucks and emergency responder vehicles, to
improve driver awareness of those vehicles and therefore pulsing lights
on CMVs would similarly alert nearby drivers to the vehicles. In
general, the comments received were conclusory and anecdotal and did
not provide specific data or research in support of their position.
VI. Equivalent Level of Safety Analysis
As noted, Intellistop petitions FMCSA to grant motor carriers an
exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e)--which requires certain exterior lamps
to be steady burning--in order to permit them use its device. FMCSA may
only grant such exemptions if it ``finds such exemption[s] would likely
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved absent the exemption[s].''
Rear-end crashes generally account for approximately 30 percent of
all crashes. They often result from a failure to respond (or delays in
responding) to a stopped or decelerating lead vehicle. Data on crashes
that occurred between 2010 and 2016 show that large trucks are
consistently three times more likely than other vehicles to be struck
in the rear in two-vehicle fatal crashes.<SUP>2 3</SUP> Accordingly,
FMCSA is deeply interested in the development and deployment of
technologies that can reduce the frequency, severity, and risk of rear-
end crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (2012), Traffic Safety Facts--2010 Data; Large
Trucks, Report No. DOT HS 811 628, Washington, DC (June 2012),
available at: <a href="https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811628">https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811628</a>.
\3\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (2018), Traffic Safety Facts--2016 Data; Large
Trucks, Report No. DOT HS 812 497, Washington, DC (May 2018),
available at: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
Publication/
812497#:~:text=Fatalities%20in%20crashes%20involving%20large,to%204%2
C317%20fatalities%20in%202016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both FMCSA and NHTSA have considered alternative rear-signaling
systems to reduce the incidence of rear-end crashes. While these
efforts concluded that improvements could be realized through certain
rear-lighting systems that flash,\4\ neither the FMCSRs nor the FMVSSs
currently permit the use of pulsating, brake-activated lamps on the
rear of CMVs. FMCSA believes that the two agencies' previous research
programs demonstrate that rear-signaling systems may be able to
``improve attention getting'' to reduce the frequency and severity of
rear-end crashes, though that benefit must be balanced against
increased risk of driver distraction and confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Expanded Research and Development of an Enhanced Rear
Signaling System for Commercial Motor Vehicles: Final Report,
William A. Schaudt et al. (Apr. 2014) (Report No. FMCSA-RRT-13-009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Agency recognizes the existing data that supports the
potential safety value of alternative rear-signaling systems in
general, it is also mindful of the data deficiencies in this area. Data
deficiencies include the effect on nearby drivers if many vehicles on a
roadway are equipped with pulsing brake lights and whether such
lighting would serve to improve driver attention or, alternatively,
cause confusion or distraction. Commenters also disagree on which color
light is most appropriate to pulse on the rear of a vehicle, red or
amber, and at this time, FMCSA does not have sufficient data to support
one conclusion over the other.
In addition to FMCSA's and NHTSA's research on rear-end crashes
into CMVs
[[Page 61136]]
outlined above, there is also data from other industry applicants whose
exemption requests the Agency has previously granted. FMCSA
acknowledges that the number of vehicles operating under those
exemptions is significant. Intellistop's exemption application,
however, is potentially far broader in scope than most previous
exemption applications FMCSA has granted, as it would apply to any
motor carrier that sought to use Intellistop's equipment and also,
importantly, alters the functioning of required lamps.\5\ FMCSA is
required to monitor implementation of the exemption to ensure
compliance with its terms and conditions and ensure that operation
under the exemption meets and maintains an equivalent level of safety.
Because of the broad scope of Intellistop's application, FMCSA would
not be able to sufficiently monitor operations under the exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In contrast, the Groendyke exemption is specific to the
individual motor carrier and applies to a single, amber, auxiliary
lamp. The NTTC and Waste Management exemptions were both granted to
organizations and apply to tens of thousands of vehicles, but again,
apply to auxiliary lamps (whether red or amber, single or double
mounted). Finally, the Grote exemption does apply to all motor
carriers, but only allows flashing of an auxiliary lamp, unlike
Intellistop's device that alters the required lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, all other pulsing rear-light exemptions that FMCSA has
previously granted involved the addition of non-mandatory auxiliary
lighting systems, whereas Intellistop seeks permission to alter the
functionality of original equipment manufacturers' lamps, which are
covered by an existing FMVSS. The Agency believes this is a crucial
distinction, and one that TSEI highlighted in its comment. TSEI
explained that while it has generally supported other similar exemption
applications, in this instance it cautioned against making ``the leap
from pulsating brake-activated warning or auxiliary lamps to pulsating
required lamps.'' \6\ The Agency, in consultation with NHTSA, has
determined that it does not currently have data to support a blanket
exemption for industry \7\ to alter the performance of a required lamp
covered by the FMCSRs and FMVSSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Transportation Safety Equipment Institute, Comment to Docket
FMCSA-2021-0048 at 2 (July 14, 2021) (emphasis in original),
available at: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FMCSA-2021-0048-0020">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FMCSA-2021-0048-0020</a>.
\7\ FMCSA seeks to make clear that this decision does not
preclude individual MCs from seeking an exemption to use an
Intellistop device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, FMCSA and NHTSA are concerned that additional requests
for industry-wide exemption from section 393.25(e) might follow, from
other companies seeking to market similar but perhaps slightly varying
brake lamp products that modify existing FMVSS brake lights. Industry-
wide exemptions are not the norm and FMCSA grants them only on a very
limited basis, especially when doing so would involve equipment
mandated by an FMVSS. The Agency has no data on the effect that such
broad adoption of pulsing brake lamps would have on driver distraction,
confusion, and overall safety, particularly if large numbers of trucks
quickly became equipped with such devices.
Commenting on this exemption application, TSEI articulated its'
long-standing ``concerns regarding the proliferation of multiple lamps
on the rear of commercial vehicles in the absence of consistent
standards related to number, color, intensity, flash patterns, duty
cycle, location, and other characteristics.'' \8\ FMCSA shares TSEIs
concerns regarding the unknown safety effects from a sudden and
industry-wide proliferation of a variety of non-conforming lighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Transportation Safety Equipment Institute, Comment to Docket
FMCSA-2021-0048 at 2 (July 14, 2021), available at: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FMCSA-2021-0048-0020">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FMCSA-2021-0048-0020</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, FMCSA concludes that Intellistop failed to
demonstrate that its device is likely to provide the equivalent level
of safety as 49 CFR 393.25(e).
VII. Exemption Decision
Given the scope of the exemption sought, to include all motor
carriers, and the limitations of the research studies completed to
date, the Agency believes an exemption to allow the alteration of the
performance of an FMVSS-required lighting device (i.e., stop lamps) on
all CMVs is not supported at this time.
Applicants requesting an exemption bear the burden of demonstrating
that the exemption from existing regulatory requirements will likely
provide an equivalent level of safety to the existing regulations.
FMCSA has evaluated Intellistop's application and the comments received
in support of and opposition to the exemption. FMCSA has also reviewed
and analyzed the research cited by Intellistop in support of its
application.
Unlike other exemption requests received by the Agency relating to
rear lighting, Intellistop's application seeks to alter the performance
of the FMVSS-required lighting device on all CMVs rather than adding
additional pulsating lights. Intellistop did not provide any specific
data relating to the operation of its device. Intellistop did not
provide data specific to the use of its module which pulses the
existing brake lamps rather than the use of additional lamps as
identified in the exemptions to Waste Management, Grote, NTTC, and
Groendyke, or regarding the distraction, confusion, or safety effects
of large numbers of trucks being so equipped.
Generally, Intellistop relied on studies of other lighting
configurations proposing to add additional pulsating lights rather than
altering the performance of the existing brake lights. Further,
Intellistop did not provide data to demonstrate that the installation
of the device would safely interact with the CMV's existing systems or
to support its claim that a malfunction of the Intellistop device would
result in the brake lights returning to OEM functionality, in
conformance with the required FMVSS.
While the technology at issue may have promise, FMCSA believes a
blanket exemption for all motor carriers to use Intellistop's product
is not supported by the currently available data, is not an appropriate
approach, and lacks the necessary monitoring controls to ensure highway
safety. Previous research programs demonstrate the potential
effectiveness of rear-signaling systems to ``improve attention
getting'' to reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes, but
that previous research does not address the potential safety benefits
or risks of a lighting system that would replace rather than merely
supplement a light required by an FMVSS. Thus, at this stage, the
record before the Agency does not show that Intellistop's petition for
an industry-wide exemption adequately demonstrates the required
threshold, of likely to achieve an equivalent level of safety.
FMCSA notes that this decision does not necessarily preclude motor
carriers from seeking exemptions from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to purchase,
install, and use the Intellistop device subject to the terms and
conditions of an exemption if granted by FMCSA, as one of the bases of
the Agency's decision here is the broad reach of Intellistop's request.
Moreover, receipt and specific consideration by FMCSA of separate
applications for exemption from individual motor carriers or motor
carrier trade groups (especially those representing a particular class
or type of CMV operators) also more closely aligns FMCSA's exemption
granting practice with the Motor Vehicle Safety Act administered by
NHTSA, which states that, ``[a] manufacturer, distributor, dealer,
rental company, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly
[[Page 61137]]
make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on
or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an
applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this
chapter,'' other than to make repairs.\9\ Here, this would mean that
the installation of equipment like that included in Intellistop's
petition would likely run afoul of this prohibition if installed by any
entity other than the operator or owner. Granting an industry-wide
exemption would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
monitor the installation of the devices and the ``make inoperative''
provisions of the Safety Act. However, individual exemption
applications from motor carriers may more closely align with FMCSA and
NHTSA authorities to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations,
since the exemption grantee would be easily identifiable, and their
compliance with the ``make inoperative'' prohibition and any other
related regulations could be checked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(b). See also NHTSA Interpretation Letter
from Steve Wood to Wolfred Freeman (approx. 1989), available at:
<a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/aiam4661">https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/aiam4661</a> (explaining that the
Safety Act ``prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner
of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part,
equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the above reasons, Intellistop's application seeking an
industry-wide exemption for its pulsing brake light module is denied.
Robin Hutcheson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-21875 Filed 10-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 7, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.