Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for Exemption From Aurora Operations, Inc (USDOT #341156)

Issuing agencies

Abstract

FMCSA announces its decision to grant a limited five-year exemption to Aurora Operations, Inc. (Aurora) and other motor carriers operating Level 4 automated driving system (ADS)-equipped commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), with prior notice to FMCSA, from compliance with the warning device placement requirements, the steady-burning lamp requirements, and the requirements for the types and number of warning devices. This exemption permits motor carriers to use cab-mounted warning beacons in lieu of traditional warning devices on Level 4 ADS- equipped CMVs. The Agency has determined that granting the 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 91 Issue 195 (Friday, October 9, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 195 (Friday, October 9, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64736-64741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20734]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2026-0958]


Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application 
for Exemption From Aurora Operations, Inc (USDOT #341156)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for 
exemption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant a limited five-year 
exemption to Aurora Operations, Inc. (Aurora) and other motor carriers 
operating Level 4 automated driving system (ADS)-equipped commercial 
motor vehicles (CMVs), with prior notice to FMCSA, from compliance with 
the warning device placement requirements, the steady-burning lamp 
requirements, and the requirements for the types and number of warning 
devices. This exemption permits motor carriers to use cab-mounted 
warning beacons in lieu of traditional warning devices on Level 4 ADS-
equipped CMVs. The Agency has determined that granting the exemption 
would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than 
the level of safety provided by the regulation.

DATES: The exemption is effective October 7, 2026 and expires October 
7, 2031.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Vinay Nagabhushana, Vehicle and 
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle 
Safety Standards; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90ddd3c0c3c6d0f4ffe4bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcf1ffecefeafcd8d3c892dbd3ca">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, 
go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2026-0958/document">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2026-0958/document</a> and 
choose the document to review. To view comments, click this notice, 
then click ``Document Comments.'' If you do not have access to the 
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations 
in the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W58-213, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant 
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). 
FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal 
Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an 
opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, 
including the applicant's safety analysis. The Agency must provide an 
opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the application, 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 absent such exemption, pursuant to the 
standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish 
its decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If granted, 
the notice will identify the regulatory provision(s) from which the 
exempted party will be exempt, the effective period, and all terms and 
conditions of the exemption (49 CFR 381.315(c)(1)). If the exemption is 
denied, the notice will explain the reason for the denial (49 CFR 
381.315(c)(2)). The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

Current Regulatory Requirements

    Aurora requests an exemption from certain FMCSR 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. Section 392.22(b) of 
the FMCSR requires the driver of a CMV stopped on the traveled portion 
or 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. Section 392.22(b) 
also specifies 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).
    Section 393.25(e) of the FMCSR requires that all exterior lamps be 
steady burning, with exceptions not relevant here.
    Section 393.95(f) of the FMCSR specifies the types and number of 
warning devices to be used for stopped vehicles, namely three 
bidirectional emergency reflective triangles or at least six fusees. 
The reference to three liquid-burning flares was removed by a final 
rule published on February 19, 2026 (91 FR 7867). Other warning devices 
may be used in addition to required devices, as long as they do not 
reduce the effectiveness of required devices.

Applicant's Request

    Aurora's application for exemption was described in detail in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 15, 2026 (91 FR 20252) and 
will not be repeated as the facts have not changed.

IV. Public Comments

    FMCSA received a total of 402 comments in response to Aurora's 
application. Commenters who support the exemption include the Montana 
Trucking Association; the Nevada Trucking Association; the Texas 
Trucking Association; the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association 
(AVIA); the Association of Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International 
(AUVSI); the National Association of Manufacturers; the American 
Trucking Associations (ATA); the Intelligent Transportation Society of 
America (ITS America); Stack AV; Hirschbach Motor Lines LLC; Kodiak AI; 
International Motors and PlusAI; Gatik AI; Uber Technologies Inc.; 
Waymo LLC; Torc Robotics; Amazon; TechNet; Volvo Group North America 
(Volvo); the Consumer Technology Association (CTA); C.R. England 
Trucking; the Allegheny Conference on Community Development; the Bay 
Area Council; the Chamber of Progress; the Arizona Technology Council; 
Safety21, the U.S. Department of Transportation National University 
Transportation Center for Safety led by Carnegie Mellon University; 
DriveOhio; and the National Fraternal Order of Police.
    Comments in support of the exemption cite the need for continued 
development of automated technologies and highlight the safety benefits 
of eliminating the requirement for a human to exit the vehicle to place 
warning devices under potentially hazardous roadway and traffic 
conditions. AUVSI supports granting the exemption to all Level 4 ADS-
equipped CMV operators, conditioned on prior FMCSA notification, to 
allow the industry to innovate. AUVSI asserts that granting the 
exemption would acknowledge the reality that it is impossible for a 
driverless truck to place warning triangles on the roadway.

[[Page 64737]]

TECHNET states that ``the elevated and actively illuminated warning 
beacons enhance vehicle conspicuity, enabling earlier detection and 
safer responses from approaching motorists,'' as well as eliminate the 
need for a human to enter an active roadway. Commenters including 
TECHNET and CTA note that the current requirements for warning devices 
were developed decades ago. Several commenters, including AVIA and 
Volvo, not only support cab-mounted warning beacons for ADS-equipped 
CMVs, but also support warning beacons for traditional CMVs to 
eliminate the risk for drivers to exit the vehicle into potentially 
unsafe road conditions. Volvo highlights that ADS-equipped vehicles are 
designed with redundancies across critical systems, and cab-mounted 
beacons should have the same standards of reliability and automation as 
other critical systems.
    Cassandra Burke Robertson, a professor from Case Western Reserve 
University School of Law, submitted comments in an individual capacity 
expressing support for the exemption. Professor Robertson notes in part 
that beacons are more reliable than warning triangles, which are 
vulnerable to displacement by wind, passing traffic, and terrain. 
Professor Robertson cites some concerns with longer vehicle 
combinations and suggests requiring supplementary rear-mounted beacons 
or reflectors on such vehicles. The ATA comments that FMCSA should 
grant the exemption based on the data from Aurora's operation under the 
waiver and the research studies submitted by Aurora. The ATA asks FMCSA 
to consider how data from multiple exemptions related to lighting 
solutions can be analyzed to improve conspicuity and safety for all 
CMVs.
    Commenters who oppose the exemption include the Truck Safety 
Coalition (TSC), Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH), and 
Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.); the Federation of 
Professional Truckers (FOPT); the Small Business in Transportation 
Coalition (SBTC); AWM Associates; REAL Women in Trucking; Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates); the Owner-Operator Independent 
Drivers Association (OOIDA); Mission Ready Transport; and DD-214 
Transport LLC. Most commenters who oppose the exemption are 
individuals, including many truck drivers. Many individual commenters 
who oppose the exemption express concerns regarding blind corners 
blocking sight lines, the risk of single point electrical failures, the 
lack of performance standards for the proposed beacons, and the 
possible articulation of trailers blocking warning beacons.
    OOIDA expresses concern that the two studies submitted with 
Aurora's application do not account for the varying weather, road, 
lighting, and traffic conditions that CMVs encounter. OOIDA also notes 
that Aurora did not provide specific information on the road 
conditions, time of day, and location where its cab-mounted beacons 
activated during the period in which Aurora operated under a waiver. 
OOIDA states that FMCSA should not grant any exemptions until it 
completes its ongoing research study on warning devices.\1\ Several 
commenters, including OOIDA, Shon's Equipment, and an anonymous 
individual, commented that the existing regulations already require the 
use of flashing lights, and that the warning triangles provide an 
additional layer of safety not present with the warning beacons. REAL 
Women in Trucking also commented that warning triangles create a 
progressive warning zone to give motorists time to identify hazards. 
REAL Women in Trucking also cites concerns that the beacons could be 
obstructed by a trailer, roadway curvatures, hills, or other 
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See <a href="https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/research-and-analysis/research/warning-devices-stopped-cmvs">https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/research-and-analysis/research/warning-devices-stopped-cmvs</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Advocates commented that FMCSA denied Aurora's previous exemption 
request due to insufficient data and that the current application fails 
to address the previously identified deficiencies. Advocates believes 
that Aurora's use of the beacons for a total of ten hours during 
expected stops does not provide a sufficient basis to grant a five-year 
exemption and that testing the beacons during expected stops does not 
provide data on the performance of the beacons in an emergency. 
Advocates also states that the public should have the opportunity to 
review the waiver term reports that Aurora submitted to FMCSA. AWM 
Associates questions the effectiveness of the beacons in real-world 
scenarios where a truck breaks down at an angle, noting that an out-of-
line trailer would physically block the cab-mounted lights. Further, 
AWM Associates suggests if the exemption were approved, it should be 
restricted to Aurora only for a one-year period. Joint comments 
submitted by TSC, CRASH, and P.A.T.T. note that cab-mounted beacons 
require the cab to be aligned with the trailer but in many emergencies 
a slight or severe jackknife may occur.
    FOPT highlights the distance-spaced warning devices as necessary 
for blind curves, hills, entrance ramps, exit ramps, shoulders and low-
visibility weather. SBTC asserts, among other things, that granting the 
exemption ``would open a can of worms'' in holding ADS-equipped CMVs to 
more lenient standards than CMVs driven by humans. Mission Ready 
Transport comments that the exemption would create a self-certification 
mechanism with no independent safety review of the equipment used by 
motor carriers operating under the exemption.
    Jonathan Judge, an owner-operator, strongly opposes the exemption 
and states that the docket was flooded with comments that reflect a 
coordinated campaign to inflate Aurora's safety claims artificially. In 
addition, Mr. Judge observes that comments were submitted by 
individuals and organizations with undisclosed affiliations with 
Aurora. Mr. Judge further notes that a cab-mounted beacon does not 
provide depth perception. He explains that the National Transportation 
Safety Board has defined the concept of ``perceptual looming,'' which 
causes the driver to realize that an object is stationary and not 
moving. He states that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 
and Traffic Incident Management protocols provide that first responders 
should establish an ``Advance Warning Area'' to initiate the perceptual 
looming response. He notes that law enforcement also deploys cone 
tapers and ``Lane + 1 blocking'' in recognition that emergency lights 
are insufficient.
    Many individual commenters commented generally on their opposition 
to driverless CMVs. Those comments are out of scope because the 
exemption request relates specifically to Aurora's exemption request 
from the warning device placement requirements in 49 CFR 392.22(b), the 
steady-burning lamp requirement in 49 CFR 393.25(e), and the 
requirements for the types and number of warning devices is 49 CFR 
393.95(f).

V. FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated Aurora's exemption application, supporting 
materials, and the comments received. The Agency has determined that 
granting an exemption to allow Aurora to install cab-mounted warning 
beacons for Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs, in lieu of placing warning 
triangles at specified locations in front of and behind the stopped 
CMVs, would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater 
than, the level of safety that would be achieved without exemption. 
Other motor carriers operating Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs may operate 
under the exemption only with prior notice to

[[Page 64738]]

FMCSA as described in the terms and conditions below.
    As noted in Aurora's exemption application, Aurora initially 
applied for an exemption from the warning device placement requirements 
in 2023. FMCSA denied that exemption request, finding that the request 
to ``exempt a class of unspecified carriers using unspecified equipment 
on unspecified vehicles only further undermines the claimed likely 
equivalent level of safety'' (89 FR 105675, 105679, Dec. 27, 2024). The 
Agency subsequently granted a temporary, narrow waiver to Aurora, which 
Aurora attached to its present exemption application, and which is 
available in the docket. Aurora's present exemption application 
requests similar limitations to those included in the waiver. FMCSA 
finds that those limitations reasonably address the reasons for the 
2024 denial and has incorporated those limitations into the terms and 
conditions of this exemption, providing the specificity and monitoring 
controls necessary to ensure highway safety. For example, the 2024 
exemption request sought industry-wide regulatory relief whereby any 
motor carrier operating Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs could operate under 
the exemption without any prior notice to FMCSA and made no mention of 
annual reports to the Agency, lacking monitoring controls. In contrast, 
this exemption requires any motor carrier, other than Aurora, to 
provide written notification to FMCSA prior to commencing operations 
covered by the exemption. Furthermore, to enable FMCSA's effective 
oversight, motor carriers must submit an annual report detailing any 
malfunctions, power issues, or other instances where the beacons did 
not operate in accordance with the exemption. In addition, the previous 
exemption request did not suggest prohibiting higher risk operations. 
This exemption prohibits operations that would otherwise require an 
``H,'' ``X,'' ``P,'' or ``S'' commercial driver's license endorsement 
if a human driver were present, explicitly barring the transportation 
of passengers or of hazardous materials as defined in 49 CFR 383.5.
    The 2024 denial also noted a lack of sufficient details about the 
proposed alternative devices. This exemption resolves that ambiguity by 
including technical specifications that mandate SAE J595 photometric 
performance standards, dictate specific mounting locations, and require 
a redundant source of power for the cab-mounted beacons to prevent 
single-point power failures of the beacons. Based on the above-
mentioned limitations and terms and conditions, the Agency determined 
that the waiver would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, 
or greater than, the level of safety that would be achieved in the 
absence of the waiver. FMCSA has incorporated these precise waiver 
limitations into the terms and conditions of this exemption to 
distinguish it directly from the 2024 denial, providing the necessary 
specificity and monitoring controls.
    Aurora states that it successfully used cab-mounted warning beacons 
under the waiver from October 10, 2025 through January 9, 2026 on 34 
CMVs that traveled over 500,000 miles. This real-world mileage 
represents new performance data that was gathered after the December 
2024 denial and, as such, was not contemplated by the Agency when it 
issued that prior decision. During that period, the beacons activated 
for a total duration of nearly 10 hours. Aurora reports that, to the 
company's knowledge, the beacons were reliable and operated as expected 
without any faults, malfunctions, or power issues. Aurora's CMVs that 
operated under the waiver were not involved in, nor contributed to, any 
roadway collisions while stopped on the roadway and using the beacons. 
Therefore, all data collected under the waiver indicated that Aurora's 
operations with the cab-mounted beacons did not degrade highway safety. 
Moreover, FMCSA did not receive any comments providing additional data 
or information, and is not aware of any additional data or information, 
indicating that the waiver negatively impacted safety. In response to 
Advocates' request to review the term reports that Aurora submitted to 
FMCSA under the waiver, FMCSA notes that Aurora submitted this 
information as confidential business information, per the terms of the 
waiver. Aurora's exemption application, however, summarizes the 
aggregate data reported during its operations under the waiver from 
October 10, 2025 through January 9, 2026 and is available in the 
docket.
    In response to comments questioning the sufficiency of the studies 
submitted by Aurora, and the performance of the cab-mounted warning 
beacons in all roadway and weather conditions, FMCSA has reconsidered 
the two studies that Aurora submitted with its 2023 exemption 
application and again with its present application. The first is the 
``Naturalistic Study of Warning Device Equivalency,'' prepared by 
Aurora in October 2022 (App. D to Aurora's application). The second is 
the ``Stopped Automated Commercial Motor Vehicle Warning Device 
Surrogates'' study, prepared by the Virginia Tech Transportation 
Institute (VTTI) for Waymo LLC on August 1, 2022 (App. E to Aurora's 
application). In the 2024 denial, FMCSA expressed concern that the 
Aurora naturalistic study showed a slightly lower percentage of drivers 
responding to beacons than warning triangles in five of eight 
scenarios. However, further analysis of the comprehensive data within 
these studies overcomes this concern and supports granting the 
exemption. Although the overall proportion of respondents may have been 
nominally lower in certain scenarios, the Aurora study revealed that 
the quality and timing of the responses were greater with the beacons. 
Specifically, in six of the eight tested scenarios, motorists initiated 
their first evasive response (such as a lane change or slowing down) 
further back from the trailer when exposed to the beacons compared to 
the triangles. Overall, the average Distance at Response (DAR) was 
135.71 meters for the beacons versus 133.24 meters for the triangles, 
demonstrating that the beacons effectively gave drivers a greater 
distance to react. The study concluded that the beacons performed 
equivalently to the deployment of the triangles. The VTTI study 
corroborated these findings in a controlled environment, concluding 
that drivers demonstrated equivalent detection, recognition, and 
performance metrics across both daytime and nighttime conditions. 
Crucially, the VTTI study highlighted specific areas where beacons 
outperformed triangles, noting that nighttime beacon exposure elicited 
earlier braking and slower, safer passing speeds. VTTI researchers also 
observed that drivers exposed to the triangles were associated with an 
overcorrection of lateral distance during certain scenarios when 
compared to the beacons. The study also surveyed participants for their 
subjective opinions of the beacons compared to triangles. The results 
of the survey indicated 78.26 percent of daytime participants and 83.33 
percent of nighttime participants reported that the beacons were more 
noticeable and easier to see than the traditional triangles. When 
considered together, these studies further support a determination that 
the beacons are likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or 
greater than, the level of safety that would be achieved absent the 
exemption.
    Although there may be some edge case circumstances in which a cab-
mounted warning beacon may not perform as expected, ``such as a CMV on 
its side'' (89 FR at 105679), warning

[[Page 64739]]

triangles are also susceptible to being knocked over or not placed 
correctly or not placed at all due to human error or incapacitation 
following a crash. FMCSA has no data suggesting that the edge case 
circumstances where beacons fail to perform as expected occur more 
frequently than those where warning triangles are compromised. In 
addition, current regulations permit a 10-minute window before a driver 
is required to place warning triangles under 49 CFR 392.22(b). In the 
2024 denial, FMCSA noted that while the applicants claimed their 
beacons would activate immediately, providing an advantage over the 
``up to ten minutes'' allowed for triangles, they failed to demonstrate 
``the timing with which they would do so, and how that timing compares 
to timing required under the FMCSR'' (89 FR at 105679). To cure this, 
FMCSA explicitly requires in the terms and conditions below that cab-
mounted warning beacons must activate within five minutes, ensuring 
they activate much more quickly and minimize the hazardous period where 
a stopped vehicle sits without extended warning signals. By requiring a 
shortened five-minute activation window, this exemption enforces a 
clear, verifiable safety improvement over both the prior denied request 
and the existing regulatory allowance.
    Although this exemption is limited in scope to CMVs equipped with a 
Level 4 ADS, cab-mounted warning beacons also present a practical 
safety benefit for traditional trucking operations. By eliminating the 
need for a driver to exit the cab physically, walk along an active 
highway or shoulder, and manually place warning devices, the beacons 
prevent drivers from being exposed to the risk of being struck by 
oncoming traffic. Given this likely benefit for human operators, FMCSA 
recognizes that updating the underlying warning device requirements for 
all CMVs, not just ADS-equipped CMVs, may be ripe for future regulatory 
action.
    In response to Mr. Judge's comment about law enforcement procedures 
for traffic incident management, FMCSA does not have any data showing 
that warning triangle placement has the same effect on approaching 
motorists as lane +1 blocking or more extensive cone tapering methods 
used by law enforcement. In response to REAL Women in Trucking, FMCSA 
similarly lacks data showing that warning triangles significantly 
improve driver reaction time. As FMCSA observed in its letter granting 
the waiver (App. C to Aurora's application), there are historically 
unresolved questions of whether the use of such warning devices 
improves traffic safety and, if so, how and to what extent. Without 
information on the level of safety the current regulatory requirements 
provide, the two studies submitted in support of Aurora's application 
reasonably support a determination that motorists detect and respond to 
the beacons at a similar rate as existing warning devices under the 
terms and conditions imposed by this exemption.
    FMCSA acknowledges Professor Robertson's concerns about the rear 
visibility of longer combination vehicles. The Agency is limiting the 
use of the exemption for longer combination vehicles to combinations 
using two, 28-foot trailers. As Aurora notes, a combination of two, 28-
foot trailers adds approximately only 9.5 feet to a standard CMV's 
length. Although this configuration creates a minimally extended 
occlusion zone directly behind the trailer, the warning beacons' 
visibility is not materially impacted by this setup. The combination of 
the high mounting location on the cab, the brightness of the flashing 
amber beacons, the requirement for standard hazard warning signal 
flashers to activate, and the existing requirement for rear reflective 
markings in 49 CFR 393.11, ensures that approaching motorists will 
likely still observe the warning before nearing or entering this narrow 
area of occlusion. Furthermore, because motorists generally do not 
drive perfectly in line with the direct center of the rear of a 
trailer, and roadways are rarely perfectly straight, any potential 
occlusion of the cab-mounted beacons would likely be fleeting. Even 
during such brief moments, the vehicle's standard rear hazard warning 
signal flashers will remain activated per the terms of the exemption to 
provide continuous conspicuity to approaching traffic. FMCSA also 
allows use of the exemption for tankers. A tanker's cylindrical shape 
and lower overall profile is reasonably likely to provide greater 
awareness and visibility of the cab-mounted beacons compared to that of 
a traditional 53-foot box trailer. Transportation of passengers or 
hazardous materials that would otherwise require a commercial driver's 
license endorsement if a human driver were present are prohibited under 
the exemptions. FMCSA will monitor the use of the exemption as to LCVs 
and tankers through the annual reporting requirement in the terms and 
conditions in Section VI.C.7 of the exemption.
    In response to comments expressing concern that the submitted 
studies and waiver operations do not account for every varying weather, 
road, lighting, and traffic condition encountered across the entire 
country, the terms of this exemption proactively address this 
limitation. Aurora's operations under the waiver were conducted 
primarily on the U.S. Interstate Highway System and under environmental 
conditions that were specific to its validated Operational Design 
Domain (ODD), and similarly, this exemption does not grant unrestricted 
nationwide deployment. Instead, the terms and conditions limit 
operations to roadways that are part of the validated ODD for the 
specific ADS-equipped CMV. Because a Level 4 ADS is constrained to 
operate only within its specific ODD, the vehicle--and its associated 
warning systems--will only be deployed in the specific geographic, 
roadway, and environmental conditions for which it has been engineered 
and validated to operate. By linking the use of the exemption directly 
to the vehicle's validated ODD, the Agency effectively bounds the 
operational risk and mitigates concerns associated with untested 
environments.
    In conclusion, the totality of the evidence--comprising over 
500,000 miles of real-world operation under the waiver without a 
negative safety impact, nearly 10 hours of successful beacon 
deployment, and empirical data from the VTTI and Aurora studies--
demonstrates that cab-mounted beacons likely perform as effectively in 
alerting approaching motorists as triangles. By pairing this 
performance data with operational guardrails, including mandatory five-
minute activation, redundant power requirements, ODD limitations, 
annual reporting requirements, and other specific terms similar to the 
waiver, FMCSA finds that this exemption cures the deficiencies 
identified in its prior denial (89 FR 105675). Therefore, the Agency 
determines that granting this exemption will likely achieve a level of 
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would 
be achieved absent such exemption.

VI. Exemption

A. Grant of Exemption

    FMCSA grants an exemption from the warning device placement 
requirements in 49 CFR 392.22(b), the steady-burning lamp requirement 
in 49 CFR 393.25(e), and the requirements for the types and number of 
warning devices is 49 CFR 393.95(f). This exemption allows motor 
carriers operating under the exemption to use cab-mounted warning 
beacons, subject to the terms and conditions of the exemption, in lieu 
of the warning devices specified in 49 CFR 393.95(f).

[[Page 64740]]

B. Applicability of Exemption

    This exemption applies to Aurora for its operation of commercial 
motor vehicles (CMVs), as defined in 49 CFR 390.5T, equipped with a 
Level 4 ADS, as defined by SAE International in Table 1 of SAE J3016 
(Apr. 2021). This exemption also applies to any other motor carrier 
operating CMVs equipped with a Level 4 ADS, provided such motor carrier 
provides written notification to FMCSA that includes the notification 
specified in Section VI.C. During the exemption period, motor carriers 
operating Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs may install and use cab-mounted 
warning beacons at locations specified in VI.C.

C. Terms and Conditions

    1. Notification. Any motor carrier, other than Aurora, that intends 
to operate CMVs under this exemption must notify FMCSA in writing prior 
to commencing operations covered by this exemption. The notification 
must be sent to FMCSA via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85c8c6d5d6d3c5e1eaf1abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="69242a393a3f290d061d470e061f">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> with the following 
information:
    a. The motor carrier's legal name, USDOT number, and principal 
place of business, and point of contact of the motor carrier.
    b. A statement that adequately demonstrates the motor carrier 
currently has cab-mounted warning beacons and the ability to comply 
with all terms and conditions of this exemption.
    c. A statement affirming the motor carrier will comply with all 
terms and conditions of this exemption.
    d. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, the notification must include 
the following language: ``I, [Name], certify under penalty of perjury 
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [Date], 
[Signature].''
    2. Operations.
    a. Operations under this exemption shall occur only on roadways 
that are part of the validated Operational Design Domain for the 
specific ADS-equipped CMV.
    b. Operations under this exemption are prohibited if operations 
would otherwise require an ``H,'' ``X,'' ``P,'' or ``S'' endorsement 
under 49 CFR 383.93--if a human driver were present.
    c. Operations under this exemption of longer combination vehicles 
(LCV), as defined in 49 CFR 380.105, are limited to LCV doubles with 
two, 28-foot trailers. This exemption must not be used for operations 
with LCV triples.
    d. Each motor carrier operating under this exemption is prohibited 
from operating as a for-hire passenger carrier or private passenger 
carrier, or transporting hazardous materials as defined in 49 CFR 
383.5, while using this exemption.
    3. Cab-Mounted Warning Beacon Specifications. The cab-mounted 
warning beacons, a safety device, used under this exemption must 
consist of forward- and rearward-facing flashing lights.
    a. Mounting. At least one rearward-facing light must be mounted on 
each side of the cab, and at least one forward-facing light mounted on 
the front of the cab. The mountings must provide stable support for the 
beacons. The total width of the vehicle, inclusive of mountings and 
lights, may not exceed 122 inches.
    b. Location. All lights must be mounted at least 100 inches from 
the ground and located at or above the upper edge of the sideview 
mirrors but below the top edge of the cab.
    c. Performance. The cab-mounted warning beacons must be amber in 
color and meet the Class 1 photometric performance requirements of SAE 
J595.
    d. Flash Pattern. The activation of the warning system must cause 
the beacons to flash at a rate different from the vehicle's standard 
hazard warning signal flashers required under 49 CFR 392.22(a).
    e. Power. The beacons must be designed and installed with redundant 
power sources to prevent failure due to a single-point power failure.
    4. Activation and Operation:
    a. The beacons must activate as soon as possible, but in any event 
within five minutes, whenever the CMV is stopped on the traveled 
portion or the shoulder of a highway for any cause other than necessary 
traffic stops (i.e., whenever 49 CFR 392.22(b) would otherwise apply).
    b. The beacons must remain flashing for the entire duration of the 
stop, from the initial stop until the vehicle reinitiates movement or 
the vehicle is recovered.
    c. Standard hazard warning signal flashers must also activate as 
required by 49 CFR 392.22(a) and must continue flashing for the entire 
duration of the stop.
    5. Other.
    a. Each motor carrier operating under this exemption must comply 
with all other applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 
CFR parts 350-399).
    b. Each motor carrier operating under this exemption shall, at 
FMCSA's request, meet with FMCSA to answer questions regarding data and 
information required to be provided under this exemption.
    6. Crash Reporting. Each motor carrier operating under this 
exemption must notify FMCSA via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f323c2f2c293f1b100b51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7bab4a7a4a1b7939883d9909881">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> not later than 
five calendar days of any crash involving a CMV while the cab-mounted 
warning beacons are activated or should have been activated per the 
conditions of this exemption. For the purposes of this exemption, the 
term ``crash'' shall have the same meaning as defined in the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Third Amended Standing 
General Order (SGO) 2021-01.\2\ Notification must include all available 
information regarding the circumstances of the crash, including the 
following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under NHTSA's Third Amended SGO 2021-01, ```Crash' means any 
physical impact between a vehicle and another road user (vehicle, 
pedestrian, cyclist, etc.) or property that results or allegedly 
results in any property damage, injury, or fatality. A subject 
vehicle is involved in a crash if it physically impacts another road 
user or if it contributes or is alleged to contribute (by steering, 
braking, acceleration, or other operational performance) to another 
vehicle's physical impact with another road user or property 
involved in that crash.'' The SGO is available at: <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2025-04/third-amended-SGO-2021-01_2025.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2025-04/third-amended-SGO-2021-01_2025.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Identifier of the Exemption (``Exemption of Warning Device 
Requirements'').
    2. Date and time of the crash.
    3. City or town, and State, in which the crash occurred, or closest 
to the crash scene, and geolocation information.
    4. Vehicle Identification Number (VIN).
    5. Description of any property damage.
    6. Number of individuals suffering physical injury.
    7. Number of fatalities.
    8. The police-reported narrative of the crash (if available at the 
time of the report or provided upon its completion).
    7. Annual Report
    Each motor carrier operating under this exemption, must submit a 
report to FMCSA via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b36382b282d3b1f140f551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d202e3d3e3b2d090219430a021b">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> upon request, and annually 
by November 1 each year the motor carrier operates under the exemption 
(or not later than 30 calendar days of ceasing operations under this 
exemption). This report must include the following information covering 
the entire period of operation under this exemption:
    a. Total number of its CMVs that operated under the exemption.
    b. Total vehicle miles traveled by its CMVs under the exemption.
    c. Data on the frequency, duration, date, location (including road 
type: interstate, State highway, local road, etc.), vehicle 
configuration (including tanker, double trailer, single trailer, 
straight truck), and reason for each malfunction, power issue, or other 
instance where the beacons did not

[[Page 64741]]

operate in accordance with the terms of the exemption.
    d. The specific mounting locations of all cab-mounted warning 
beacons used on its CMVs.
    e. Whether any variations in cab-mounted warning beacon types, 
mounting, or flash patterns were used across its fleet when operating 
under the exemption. If variations were used, any performance 
differences among the beacons.
    8. Request To Treat Information as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI). Nonpublic information submitted by a motor carrier 
under Section VI.C.6 or 7 above will be treated as CBI, which is 
defined as commercial or financial information that is both customarily 
and actually treated as private by its owner,\3\ if designated as such 
by the submitting motor carrier. FMCSA will withhold CBI from public 
disclosure to the greatest extent possible consistent with the Freedom 
of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), and DOT's implementing regulations 
at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Food Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U.S. 427, 440 
(2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Safety Notification. Each motor carrier operating under this 
exemption, must notify FMCSA via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a07091a191c0a2e253e642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b66687b787d6b4f445f054c445d">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> not later than 
five calendar days after it becomes aware, or otherwise determines, 
that the continued use of cab-mounted beacons covered by this exemption 
is no longer likely to maintain a level of safety that is at least 
equivalent to the level that would be achieved absent this exemption.

D. Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall 
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that 
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a 
firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not 
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in 
intrastate commerce.

VII. Termination

    FMCSA does not expect the motor carriers covered by this exemption 
will experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, the 
exemption will be revoked as to all motor carriers or an individual 
motor carrier if: (1) the motor carrier or motor carriers operating 
under the exemption fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the 
exemption; (2) the exemption results in a lower level of safety than 
was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the 
exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 
Title 49, chapter 313 or section 31136.

Derek D. Barrs,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-20734 Filed 10-8-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>