Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Groendyke Transport, Inc. |
|---|
Topics: Groendyke Transport
|
Raymond P. Martinez
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
26 April 2019
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 81 (Friday, April 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17910-17913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08463]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0223]
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From Groendyke Transport, Inc.
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to grant Groendyke Transport, Inc.'s (Groendyke)
application for a limited 5-year exemption to allow the use of an amber
brake-activated pulsating lamp on its trailers in addition to the
steady-burning brake lamps required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSR). The FMCSRs require all exterior lamps (both
required lamps and any additional lamps) to be steady-burning, except
turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, school bus warning
lamps, amber warning lamps or flashing warning lamps on tow trucks and
commercial motor vehicles (CMV) transporting oversized loads, and
warning lamps on emergency and service vehicles authorized by State or
local authorities. The Agency has determined that granting the
exemption to allow the use of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp
in addition to the required steady-burning brake lamps on the rear of
Groendyke's trailers would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent
to or greater than the level of safety provided by the regulation.
DATES: This exemption is effective April 26, 2019 and ending April 26,
2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke 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.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments submitted to notice requesting public comments on the
exemption application, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit
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. 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the FMCSRs. 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 any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
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. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).
Groendyke's Application for Exemption
Groendyke applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to allow
installation of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp on the rear of
its trailers in addition to the steady-burning brake lamps required by
the FMCSRs. A copy of the application is included in the docket
referenced at the beginning of this notice.
Groendyke is a carrier of flammable fuel and liquid hazardous
materials. Groendyke has a fleet of approximately 900 trucks and 1,440
trailers, and employs over 1,200 individuals, including approximately
900 drivers. In its application, Groendyke states ``Groendyke assessed
what it could do to prevent other drivers from rear ending Groendyke
trailers, and determined that increasing visibility of Groendyke
trailers would be an efficient means to prevent rear ending accidents.
To do this, Groendyke searched for ways to cause its braking system to
capture the attention of other drivers faster and more completely.''
Section 393.25(e) of the FMCSRs requires all exterior lamps (both
[[Page 17911]]
required lamps and any additional lamps) to be steady-burning, except
turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, school bus warning
lamps, amber warning lamps or flashing warning lamps on tow trucks and
commercial motor vehicles (CMV) transporting oversized loads, and
warning lamps on emergency and service vehicles authorized by State or
local authorities. In its application, Groendyke seeks an exemption to
allow installation of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp to the
rear of its trailers. The brake-activated pulsating lamp would be
positioned in the upper center portion of the trailer. In support of
its application, Groendyke contends that the addition of the brake-
activated pulsating lamp will improve safety, and states that (1)
research shows that pulsating brake lamps in addition to steady burning
red brake lamps improves visibility and prevents accidents, (2) its own
experience has demonstrated that pulsating brake lamps in addition to
steady burning red brake lamps has decreased the frequency of rear-end
accidents involving its fleet, and (3) similar exemptions exist for
other classes of vehicles.
Research. Groendyke cited several studies conducted by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, another agency in the U.S.
Department of Transportation, on the issues of rear-end crashes,
distracted driving, and braking signals. Groendyke stated:
Research indicates that there are ways to improve the attention-
getting qualities of braking systems. Including a pulsating brake
lamp on a lead vehicle has quantifiable effect on the drivers of
following vehicles and measurably reduces rear-end collisions.
Drivers are redirected and altered faster and more efficiently when
a pulsating brake lamp draws their attention to the lead vehicle. As
a result, rear-end collisions, can be prevented or at least reduced.
Groendyke Experience. Beginning in the second quarter of 2015,
Groendyke began an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp on some of its
fleet without authorization from FMCSA to compare the frequency of
rear-end collisions between (1) trailers equipped with both centrally-
mounted amber brake-activated pulsating lamp and the required steady-
burning lamps, and (2) trailers equipped with only the steady-burning
lamps required by the FMCSRs. As of July 31, 2017, Groendyke had
outfitted 632 of its 1,440 trailers with an amber brake-activated
pulsating lamp.
Data gathered by Groendyke between January 2015 and July 2017 show
that trailers equipped with both the amber brake-activated pulsating
lamp and the steady-burning brake lamps were involved in 33.7 percent
fewer rear-end collisions as compared to vehicles equipped with only
the steady-burning brake lamps. Groendyke also analyzed its data to
determine whether the presence of the amber brake-activated pulsating
lamp improved outcomes when drivers were slowing or stopping at
railroad crossings.\1\ Groendyke found that trailers equipped with the
amber brake-activated pulsating lamp were not involved in a rear-end
crash at a railroad crossing during the same time period. Groendyke
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As cargo tank operators hauling hazardous materials,
Groendyke drivers are required to stop or slow significantly at
railroad crossings (49 CFR 392.10-392.12). Groendyke notes that
railroad crossings are a significant source of rear-end collisions
at Groendyke and elsewhere because non-commercial drivers may not
anticipate stops at railroad crossings.
The results of the Groendyke Brake Warning Device Campaign are
clear: The frequency of rear-end collisions is markedly lower when
trailers are outfitted with pulsating brake lamps in addition to the
steady-burning lamps required by the FMCSRs. The pulsating brake
lamps draw other drivers' attention to what is happening with the
vehicle in front more effectively and more quickly than steady
burning lamps. In the interest of safety and productivity, Groendyke
desires to implement the Groendyke Brake Warning Device Campaign on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the rest of its fleet without risking violation of the FMCSRs.
Exemptions for Other Classes of Vehicles. In its application,
Groendyke noted that the current requirements of 49 CFR 393.25(e)
specifically exclude tow trucks and CMVs from the requirements that all
exterior lamps be steady-burning. Groendyke contends that ``Allowing an
exemption for drivers of hazardous loads would be consistent with the
intent of the regulation.''
The exemption would apply only to Groendyke's trailers. If
approved, Groendyke would be permitted to install an amber brake-
activated pulsating lamp positioned in the upper center portion of the
rear of its trailer. Groendyke stated that the additional brake lamp
will not have an adverse impact on safety, and that adherence to the
terms and conditions of the exemption would achieve a level of safety
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety achieved without the
exemption.
Comments
FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register
on July 30, 2018, and asked for public comment (83 FR 36662). The
Agency received thirty-four comments from: the Truckload Carrier
Association (TCA); the National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. (NTTC); the
American Trucking Associations (ATA); and 31 individuals.
TCA, NTTC, and ATA each supported granting the application to allow
the use of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp in addition to the
steady-burning brake lamps required by the FMCSRs. TCA cited
Groendyke's 33.7 percent reduction in rear-end collisions when using
the amber brake-activated pulsating lamp, and the fact that other types
of CMVs are permitted to use flashing lights in supporting a decision
to grant the exemption. TCA stated that several of its members ``have
used these pulsating lamps in the past, and we believe that greater
flexibility on using them moving forward would provide meaningful
safety improvements for the industry.''
Further, TCA stated:
Since Groendyke is not requesting to be exempted from the
regulations on required steady-burning lamps, but rather is asking
to be allowed to install additional equipment with pulsating lights,
TCA believes it is in the best interest of the industry for FMCSA to
grant Groendyke the requested flexibility. The baseline safety of
the required steady-burning lamps will continue to be in place on
Groendyke's trucks even if the additional pulsating brake lamps are
installed.
NTTC also cited Groendyke's 33.7 percent reduction in rear-end
collisions when using the amber brake-activated pulsating lamp, and
stated ``This easily meets the regulatory standard that the proposed
exemption `would maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater
than, the level achieved without an exemption.' '' In addition, NTTC
strongly advocates that if FMCSA decides to grant Groendyke's exemption
application, that the same relief should be granted to all carriers
operating cargo tank truck trailers because ``there is no factor unique
to Groendyke's trailers or pulsating brake lamps that cannot be
replicated by other motor carriers.'' NTTC states that extending the
exemption to all cargo tank trailers will ``maximize safety for the
tank truck segment and for the Nation as a whole.'' Finally, NTTC
recommends that FMCSA grant the exemption, and then initiate a
rulemaking proceeding to formally incorporate the provisions of the
exemption into the FMCSRs.
ATA believes that grating the exemption will provide an opportunity
to operate enhanced rear signaling (ERS) technology in a wide-range of
real-world conditions to gather field data to further substantiate its
benefits, and may provide NHTSA with information to assist in
developing performance criteria and objective test procedures for ERS.
Specifically, ATA stated:
[[Page 17912]]
FMCSA and NHTSA research have demonstrated the potential
benefits of enhanced rear signaling (ERS) systems. NHTSA research on
ERS found that use of brake signal configurations on passenger cars
which included flashing lights were effective, reducing the crash
rate by as much as 5.1%, and the results presented by Groendyke
indicate even greater effectiveness for similar ERS on commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs). Additionally, FMCSA research on ERS for CMVs
showed no unsafe following vehicle driver reactions/behaviors in
real world testing.
Consistent with the DOT reports and research, motor carriers
like Groendyke recognize the potential of ERS for improving safe
operations when compared with traditional standard brake lamps. For
example, ERS can provide the following functions beyond what
traditional CMV lighting and reflective devices offer: attention to
CMVs stopped ahead; awareness of road side breakdowns; emergency
braking; and driver confidence from both vehicles. In addition to
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.
Twenty-one individuals submitted comments 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 the amber brake-activated pulsating lamp, including
(1) enhanced awareness that the vehicle is making a stop, especially at
railroad crossings, and (2) increased visibility in severe winter
weather conditions.
Ten individuals submitted comments opposing the granting of the
exemption. Commenters stated that use of the amber brake-activated
pulsating lamp could potentially be distracting to the motoring public,
and that the use of amber brake lights could be confusing as brake
lights are required to be red in color.
FMCSA Decision
The FMCSA has evaluated the Groendyke exemption application, and
the comments received. The Agency believes that granting the temporary
exemption to allow the use of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp
positioned in the upper center portion of the trailer, in addition to
the steady burning brake lamps required by the FMCSRs, will provide a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety achieved without the exemption.
Rear-end crashes generally account for approximately 30 percent of
all crashes. These types of crashes often result from a failure to
respond (or delays in responding) to a stopped or decelerating lead
vehicle. Data 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.2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both FMCSA and NHTSA have conducted research programs regarding
alternative rear signaling systems to address rear-end crashes. FMCSA
has conducted research and development of an Enhanced Rear Signaling
(ERS) system for CMVs.\4\ The study noted that while brake lights are
activated only with the service brakes, and the visual warning is only
provided during conditions when the lead vehicle is decelerating using
its braking system, brake lights are not activated during other
conditions wherein rear-end collisions can occur (i.e., the CMV is (1)
stopped along the roadway or in traffic, (2) traveling slower, or (3)
decelerating using an engine retarder). Because of the limitations of
the existing brake system described above, along with issues relating
to visual distraction, the study examined ways for CMVs to detect rear-
end crash threats and to provide drivers of following vehicles a
supplemental visual warning--located on the lead vehicle, and in
addition to the current brake lights--so following-vehicle drivers can
quickly recognize impending collision threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (2014), Expanded Research and Development of
an Enhanced Rear Signaling System for Commercial Motor Vehicles,
Report No. FMCSA-RRT-13-009, Washington, DC (April 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During Phase I of this effort, researchers performed crash database
analyses to determine causal factors of rear-end collisions and to
identify potential countermeasures. Phase II continued through
prototype development based on recommendations from Phase I. During
Phase II field testing, potential benefits of using such
countermeasures were realized. During Phase III, a multi-phased
approach was executed to design, develop, and test multiple types of
countermeasures on a controlled test track and on public highways.
Phase III resulted in positive results for a rear warning prototype
system comprising 12 light-emitting diode (LED) units that would flash
at 5 Hz to provide a visual warning to the following-vehicle drivers
indicating that, with continued closing rate and distance, a collision
will occur with the lead vehicle. Finally, the prototype system was
further developed and refined to include modification of the system
into a unit designed for simple CMV installation, collision-warning
activation refinements, and rear lighting brightness adjustments for
nighttime conditions. Formal closed test track and real-world testing
were then performed to determine the ERS system collision-warning
activation performance.
While the efforts described above demonstrated a promising system
for follow-on research, FMCSA ultimately decided not to pursue formal
field operational testing of the prototype system because of concerns
relating to (1) the cost to implement the ERS system as configured, and
(2) fleets' willingness to invest in the technology given the cost of
the system. Nonetheless, the preliminary research showed that the ERS
system performed well at detecting and signaling rear-end crash threats
and drawing the gaze of following-vehicle drivers to the forward
roadway which if implemented, could potentially reduce the number and
frequency of rear-end crashes into the rear of CMVs.
Separately, NHTSA has performed a series of research studies
intended to develop and evaluate rear signaling applications designed
to reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes via
enhancements to rear-brake lighting by redirecting drivers' visual
attention to the forward roadway (for cases involving a distracted
driver), and/or increasing the saliency or meaningfulness of the brake
signal (for attentive drivers).5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (2009), Traffic Safety Facts--Vehicle Safety
Research Notes; Assessing the Attention-Gettingness of Brake
Signals: Evaluation of Optimized Candidate Enhanced Braking Signals;
Report No. DOT HS 811 129, Washington, DC (May 2009).
\6\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (2010), Traffic Safety Facts--Vehicle Safety
Research Notes; Assessing the Attention-Getting Capability of Brake
Signals: Evaluation of Candidate Enhanced Braking Signals and
Features; Report No. DOT HS 811 330, Washington, DC (June 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initially, the study quantified the attention-getting capability
and discomfort glare of a set of candidate rear brake lighting
configurations, using driver judgments, as well as eye-drawing metrics.
This study served to narrow the set of candidate lighting
configurations to those that would most likely be carried forward for
additional
[[Page 17913]]
study on-road. 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.
Subsequently, the study quantified the attention-getting capability
of a set of candidate rear brake lighting configurations, including
proposed approaches from automotive companies. This study was conducted
to provide data for use in a simulation model to assess the
effectiveness and safety benefits of enhanced rear brake light
countermeasures. Among other things, this research demonstrated that
flashing all lights simultaneously or alternately flashing is a
promising signal for use in enhanced brake light applications, even at
levels of brightness within the current regulated limits. Specifically,
the study concluded that substantial performance gains may be realized
by increasing brake lamp brightness levels under flashing
configurations; however, increases beyond a certain brightness
threshold will not return substantive performance gains.
From the above, both FMCSA and NHTSA have conducted extensive
research and development programs to examine alternative rear signaling
systems to reduce the incidence of rear-end crashes. However, while
these efforts concluded that improvements could be realized through
rear lighting systems that flash, neither the FMCSRs nor the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) currently permit the use of
pulsating, brake-activated lamps on the rear of CMVs.
With respect to the use of amber lights, NHTSA has conducted
research on the effectiveness of rear turn signal color on the
likelihood of being involved in a rear-end crash.\7\ FMVSS No. 108
allows rear turn signals to be either red or amber in color. The study
concluded that amber signals show a 5.3 percent effectiveness in
reducing involvement in two-vehicle crashes where a lead vehicle is
rear-struck in the act of turning left, turning right, merging into
traffic, changing lanes, or entering/leaving a parking space. The
advantage of amber rear turn signals was shown to be statistically
significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (2009), The Effectiveness of Amber Rear Turn
Signals for Reducing Rear Impacts; Report No. DOT HS 811 115,
Washington, DC (April 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA acknowledges the concerns of commenters that the amber brake-
activated pulsating lamp may be distracting or confusing to some
motorists. At the same time, however, the Agency agrees with TCA and
NTTC that the 33.7 percent reduction in rear-end crashes documented by
Groendyke between January 1, 2015, and July 31, 2017, for its trailers
that had been equipped with the additional lights is both persuasive
and compelling given the magnitude of the rear-end crash population.
FMCSA believes that this real-world experience, along with the FMCSA
and NHTSA research programs that demonstrated the ability of
alternative rear signaling systems to reduce the frequency and severity
of rear-end crashes, is sufficient to conclude that the implementation
of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp on the rear of Groendyke's
trailers is likely to provide a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
Terms and Conditions for the Exemption
The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a 5-year period,
beginning April 26, 2019 and ending April 26, 2024. During the
temporary exemption period, Groendyke will be allowed to install an
amber brake-activated pulsating lamp positioned in the upper center of
the rear of the trailer in addition to the steady burning brake lamps
required by the FMCSRs.
The exemption will be valid for 5 years unless rescinded earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Groendyke fails to
comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted 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 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).
Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate
that Groendyke's use of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp
positioned in the upper center of the rear of the trailer in addition
to the steady burning brake lamps required by the FMCSRs is not
achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if
safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is
not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take
immediate steps to revoke the exemption.
Preemption
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(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
Groendyke operating under the exemption. States may, but are not
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in
intrastate commerce.
Issued on: April 18, 2019.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-08463 Filed 4-25-19; 8:45 am]