Notice2024-28376
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Polytech Plastic Molding, Inc., USDOT #1764512
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
December 4, 2024
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Abstract
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces its decision to deny an application from Polytech Plastic Molding, Inc. (Polytech, USDOT #1764512) for an exemption to allow it to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with a module manufactured by Intellistop, Inc. (Intellistop). The Intellistop module is designed to pulse the required rear clearance, identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds when the brakes are applied and then return the lights to a steady-burning state while the brakes remain engaged. The Agency has determined that Polytech did not demonstrate that it would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved by the regulation.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 96274-96277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28376]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0246]
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From Polytech Plastic Molding, Inc., USDOT #1764512
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to deny an application from Polytech Plastic
Molding, Inc. (Polytech, USDOT #1764512) for an exemption to allow it
to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with a module
manufactured by Intellistop, Inc. (Intellistop). The Intellistop module
is designed to pulse the required rear clearance, identification, and
brake lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity to a higher-level
lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds when the brakes are applied and
then return the lights to a steady-burning state while the brakes
remain engaged. The Agency has determined that Polytech did not
demonstrate that it would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved by the regulation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Sutula, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV, (202) 366-9209, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d69b9586858096b2b9a2f8b1b9a0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e8a5abb8bbbea88c879cc68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, insert the docket
number ``FMCSA-2022-0246'' 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, insert the
[[Page 96275]]
docket number ``FMCSA-2022-0246'' in the keyword box, click ``Search,''
and chose the document to review.
If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
II. Legal Basis
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the FMCSRs if it ``finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the
exemption.'' FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register and provide the public an opportunity to inspect
the information relevant to the application, including the applicant's
safety analysis, and an opportunity for public comment on the request
(49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 381.315(a).
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice, if granted, must also specify the effective period
and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption.
III. Background
A. Current Regulatory Requirements
Section 393.25(e) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) requires all exterior lamps (both required lamps and any
additional lamps) to be steady burning, with certain exceptions not
relevant here. Two other provisions of the FMCSRs--section 393.11(a)
and section 393.25(c)--mandate that required lamps on CMVs meet the
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108
in effect at the time of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108, issued by the U.S.
Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), includes a requirement that installed brake
lamps, whether original or replacement equipment, be steady burning.
B. Applicant's Request
Polytech applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to allow it
to operate CMVs, equipped with Intellistop's module. When the brakes
are applied, the Intellistop module is designed to pulse the rear
clearance, identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting
intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds and
then maintain the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) level of
illumination for those lamps until the brakes are released and
reapplied. Intellistop asserts that its module is designed to ensure
that if the module ever fails, the clearance, identification, and brake
lamps will default to normal OEM function and illumination.
Polytech's application followed the Agency's October 7, 2022 (87 FR
61133), denial of Intellistop's application for an industry-wide
exemption to allow all interstate motor carriers to operate CMVs
equipped with the Intellistop module. While the Agency determined that
the scope of the exemption Intellistop sought was too broad to ensure
that an equivalent level of safety would be achieved, the Agency
explained that individual motor carrier applications for exemption may
be more closely aligned with FMCSA authorities. Exemptions more limited
in scope would allow the Agency to ensure compliance with all relevant
FMCSA regulations because the individual exemptee would be easily
identifiable and its compliance with applicable regulations could be
monitored, thus providing a level of safety equivalent to compliance
with 49 CFR 393.25(e).
Polytech stated that previous research demonstrated that the use of
pulsating brake-activated lamps increases the visibility of vehicles
and should lead to a significant decrease in rear-end crashes. In
support of its application, Polytech submitted several reports of
research conducted by NHTSA on the issues of rear-end crashes,
distracted driving, and braking signals.<SUP>1 2 3</SUP> This same body
of research was also referenced in Intellistop's industry-wide
exemption application. Relying on these studies, Polytech stated that
the addition of brake-activated pulsating lamp(s) will not have an
adverse impact on safety and would likely maintain a level of safety
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety achieved without the
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See NHTSA Study--Evaluation of Enhanced Brake Lights Using
Surrogate Safety Metrics <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811127.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811127.pdf</a>; As part of the General Findings the NHTSA study
report concluded that ``rear lighting continues to look promising as
a means of reducing the number and severity of rear-end crashes.''
\2\ See also NHTSA Study--Enhanced Rear Lighting and Signaling
Systems <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y2romx76">https://tinyurl.com/y2romx76</a> or <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/task_3_results_0.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/task_3_results_0.pdf</a>; As part of the conclusions
NHTSA found that enhanced, flashing brake lighting ``demonstrated
improvements in brake response times and other related performance
measures.''
\3\ See also NHTSA--Traffic Safety Facts <a href="https://tinyurl.com/yxglsdax">https://tinyurl.com/yxglsdax</a> or <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/tsf811128.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/tsf811128.pdf</a>; which concluded that flashing brake lights were a
promising signal for improving attention-getting during brake
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at
the beginning of this notice.
IV. Comments
FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register
on February 1, 2023, and asked for public comment (88 FR 6809). The
Agency received 16 comments from the American Trucking Associations
(ATA); Intellistop, Inc.; the National Truck Equipment Association
(NTEA); the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI); and 12
other commenters. Fifteen of the commenters favored the exemption
application, while TSEI expressed concerns.
TSEI reiterated comments it had previously made in support of the
safety benefits of brake-activated warning lamps when used in
conjunction with steady burning red brake lamps as well as its prior
support of the exemption requests from Groendyke Transport, National
Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC), and Grote Industries. Despite these
previous expressions of support for the potential benefits of some
brake warning lamp configurations, TSEI stated that it is concerned
about any exemption permitting the pulsing of lamps that are currently
required to be steady burning without a thorough consideration of
safety data and research. TSEI stated that the aim of future rulemaking
should be to ensure consistent application across all vehicles equipped
with such pulsating lamps and recommended that the Agency engage in a
formal rulemaking to amend Part 393 to allow for pulsating brake lamps.
ATA supported Polytech's request and stated that enhanced rear
signaling (ERS) can provide functionality beyond what traditional CMV
lighting and reflective devices offer, including drawing attention to
CMVs stopped ahead; increasing awareness of roadside breakdowns;
notification of emergency
[[Page 96276]]
braking; and improving driver confidence from both vehicles. ATA also
stated that, in addition to these safety benefits, ERS performance is
superior to that of steady burning brake lamps in conditions of severe
weather, taillight glare, and around infrastructure obstacles.
Specifically, ATA noted that this ``request by Polytech presents
another opportunity for the DOT to learn about the performance of ERS
in real world applications.'' Further, ATA stated that ``[it] believes
the exemption process is well-suited for these kinds of situations,
where the DOT can monitor small, controlled deployments to learn about
benefits and costs and gather important data to make sound judgments on
a broader industry exemption or change in regulations.''
ATA recommended that, if granted, the Agency provide clear guidance
in the terms and conditions of the exemption grant to aid the Agency in
monitoring the exemption for unintended consequences and aid the
Applicant in understanding expectations for potential renewal of the
exemption application. ATA further commented that FMCSA should work
with industry to develop research efforts that examine the performance
of ERS to supplement future DOT decisions on ERS technologies. and aid
the Applicant in understanding expectations for potential renewal of
the exemption application. ATA further commented that FMCSA should work
with industry to develop research efforts that examine the performance
of ERS to supplement future DOT decisions on ERS technologies.
The NTEA supported a temporary exemption. The NTEA, however,
expressed concern that some of its members who are manufacturers and
alterers of motor vehicles receive requests from fleet operators to
install brake-activated pulsating warning lamps on certain new vehicles
they construct or modify. As manufacturers of new motor vehicles, NTEA
members are required to certify these vehicles to applicable NHTSA
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). NTEA noted that FMCSA
does not have the authority to exempt CMV manufacturers from their
obligation to certify FMVSS compliance. It recommended the Agency
clarify in the terms and conditions carrier, manufacturer, and repair
facility responsibilities and limitations and the conditions under
which such modifications may be made. NTEA specifically requested that
FMCSA ``make clear that [this] exemption does not currently change any
NHTSA regulations applying to the certification of federal motor
vehicle safety standards,'' if it grants the exemption.
Intellistop supported the Applicant's request for exemption. It
commented that for over 20 years, multiple States have allowed pulsing
or flashing of brake lamps. Intellistop also asserted many State driver
training schools recommend tapping brakes to warn other motorists when
a CMV is slowing or stopping. Intellistop stated that it is unlikely
that other motorists would confuse the use of their module with the
recommendation to tap brakes when a CMV is slowing or stopping, as
``[s]eeing brake lights flash is a commonly communicated method to
alert other drivers that a vehicle is slowing down or stopping.''
Twelve additional comments were submitted in support of granting
the exemption. These commenters believe that any technology that has
been shown to reduce rear-end crashes should be allowed and cited
various benefits of brake activated pulsating lamps, including (1)
enhanced awareness that the vehicle is making a stop, especially at
railroad crossings, and (2) increased visibility in severe weather
conditions. Several commenters noted that 37 States currently allow
brake lamps to flash. In addition, three commenters noted that the
guidelines developed by the American Driver and Traffic Safety
Education Association advise driving instructors to teach new drivers
to pulse brake lamps when stopping to improve visibility.
V. FMCSA Equivalent Level of Safety Analysis
Polytech petitioned FMCSA to grant an exemption from 49 CFR
393.25(e)--requiring certain exterior lamps to be steady burning--to
allow it to operate CMVs equipped with Intellistop's module. FMCSA has
determined that in order for Polytech to operate vehicles in compliance
with the FMCSRs, an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) must be accompanied
by limited exemptions from 49 CFR 393.11(a) and 393.25(c), both of
which mandate that required lamps on CMVs operated in interstate
commerce must, ``at a minimum, meet the applicable requirements of 49
CFR 571.108 (FMVSS No. 108) in effect at the time of manufacture of the
vehicle.'' FMCSA grants exemptions only when it determines ``such
exemption[s] would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the
exemption[s].''
Rear-end crashes generally account for approximately 30 percent of
all crashes. They often result from a failure to respond (or delays in
responding) to a stopped or decelerating lead vehicle. Data on crashes
that occurred between 2010 and 2016 show that large trucks are
consistently three times more likely than other vehicles to be struck
in the rear in two-vehicle fatal crashes.<SUP>4 5</SUP> FMCSA is deeply
interested in the development and deployment of technologies that can
reduce the frequency, severity, and risk of rear-end crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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>.
\5\ 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: <a href="https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812497">https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812497</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both FMCSA and NHTSA have examined alternative rear-signaling
systems to reduce the incidence of rear-end crashes. While research
efforts concluded that improvements in the incidence of rear-end
crashes could be realized through certain rear-lighting systems that
flash,\6\ the FMCSRs do not currently permit the use of pulsating,
brake-activated lamps on the rear of CMVs. FMCSA believes that the two
agencies' previous research programs demonstrate that rear-signaling
systems may be able to ``improve attention getting'' to reduce the
frequency and severity of rear-end crashes. Any possible benefit must
be balanced against a possible risk of increased driver distraction and
confusion. In balancing these interests, the Agency was compelled to
deny the Intellistop application for exemption because the industry-
wide scope of the request was too broad for the Agency to effectively
monitor for the potential risk of driver distraction or confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency acknowledges the limitations of the research studies
completed to date and the overall data deficiencies in this area.
Nonetheless, as noted in its Intellistop decision, the Agency
recognizes that existing data do suggest a potential safety value in
the use of alternative rear-signaling systems, generally. Specifically,
FMCSA considered NHTSA's research concerning the development and
evaluation of rear-signaling applications designed to reduce the
frequency and severity of rear-end crashes via enhancements to rear-
brake lighting. The study examined enhancements for (1) redirecting
drivers' visual attention
[[Page 96277]]
to the forward roadway (for cases involving a distracted driver) and
(2) increasing the saliency or meaningfulness of the brake signal (for
inattentive drivers).\7\ The research considered the attention-getting
capability and discomfort glare of a set of candidate rear brake
lighting configurations using driver judgments and eye-drawing metrics.
The results of this research served to narrow the set of candidate
lighting configurations to those that would most likely be carried
forward for additional on-road study. Based on subjective participant
responses, this research indicates some form of flashing or variation
in brake light brightness may be more than two times more attention-
getting than the baseline, steady-burning brake lights for distracted
drivers.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See NHTSA Study--Evaluation of Enhanced Brake Lights Using
Surrogate Safety Metrics <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811127.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811127.pdf</a>.
\8\ Ibid. While data demonstrated that brighter flashing lights
were the most attention-getting combination for distracted drivers
in this study, flashing lights with no increase in brightness were
still more effective at capturing a distracted driver's attention
than the baseline steady-burning brake lamps. Both look-up (eye
drawing) data and interview data supported the hypothesis that
simultaneous flashing of all rear lighting combined with increased
brightness would be effective in redirecting the driver's eyes to
the lead vehicle when the driver is looking away with tasks that
involve visual load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some of the data collected in the study may not be
statistically significant, the study results nonetheless indicate that
additional efforts to get drivers' attention when they are approaching
the rear of a CMV that is stopping may be helpful to reduce driver
distraction and, ultimately, rear-end crashes. This was among several
reasons why researchers concluded that the promising nature of enhanced
brake lighting systems warranted additional work and research. FMCSA
believes the acquisition of relevant data through real-world monitoring
is of critical importance as the Agency continues to seek new and
innovative options for reducing crashes. This is particularly true
given the data limitations noted in previous studies.
Despite finding a potential safety value in the use of alternative
rear-signaling technology, in the Intellistop decision the Agency
determined that the data presently available did not justify an
exemption to allow all interstate motor carriers to alter the
performance of an FMVSS-required lighting device (i.e., stop lamps) on
any CMV. In contrast, however, Polytech's application requests an
exemption from the steady-burning brake lamp requirement for CMV
operations for only a single interstate motor carrier. As FMCSA noted
in its denial of Intellistop's industry-wide exemption application,
individual motor carrier exemption requests more closely align with
FMCSA and NHTSA authorities to ensure compliance with all other
applicable regulations and with the safety performance of the smaller
population of affected motor carriers. With an individual motor carrier
exemption, the Agency can also more easily monitor compliance with
terms and conditions intended to ensure operations conducted under the
exemption do in fact provide an equivalent level of safety. Polytech's
application demonstrates why this is particularly true, since the
vehicles operated by Polytech under the exemption would be easily
identifiable, and compliance with NHTSA's ``make inoperative''
prohibition and other related regulations could be readily checked.
The Agency's decision to deny this exemption is based on the
unavailablity of carrier and safety data. Polytech was issued a notice
for ``Failure to complete biennial update'' on April 8, 2015, which
deactivated its USDOT number. Any subsequent operations in interstate
commerce were illegal. FMCSA is unable to ascertain how many CMVs
operated by Polytech would have an Intellistop module installed, nor
does the Agency have any safety data to compare the performance of
Polytech against industry averages.
Additionally, the Polytech website states that it maintains a small
fleet of delivery vehicles to service a delivery area within the US and
Canada. FMCSA notes that these deliveries must be occurring with
delivery vehicles owned by Polytech that are not registered under a
USDOT carrier number. Thus, Polytech is either using delivery vehicles
that are not subject to the FMCSRs because they do not meet the
definition of a CMV or is operating in violation of the FMCSRs. In the
former case, FMCSA does not have jurisdiction to grant an exemption. In
the latter case, nine years of illegal operations strongly suggests
that Polytech is unlikely to comply with the terms and conditions of an
exemption.
VI. Exemption Decision
a. Denial of Exemption
FMCSA has evaluated Polytech's exemption application and the
comments received. For the reasons given above, the Agency is denying
Polytech's application for a temporary exemption.
Vincent G. White,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-28376 Filed 12-3-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 4, 2024.
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.