Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From National Tank Truck Carriers Inc. |
|---|
Topics: National Tank Truck Carriers
|
James W. Deck
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
8 October 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 196 (Thursday, October 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63643-63647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22233]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0260]
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From National Tank Truck Carriers 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 National Tank Truck Carriers Inc.'s
(NTTC) application for a limited 5-year exemption to allow motor
carriers operating tank trailers to install a red or amber brake-
activated pulsating lamp in the upper center position or in an upper
dual outboard position on the rear of the trailers, in addition to the
steady-burning brake lamps required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
[[Page 63644]]
Regulations (FMCSR). 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: This exemption is applicable October 8, 2020 and ending October
8, 2025.
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. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting
Docket Operations. The on-line Federal document management system is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. The docket number is
listed at the beginning of this notice.
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)).
NTTC's Application for Exemption
NTTC applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to allow motor
carriers operating tank trailers to install a red or amber brake-
activated pulsating lamp in the upper center position or in an upper
dual outboard position on the rear of the 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.
NTTC is an association of over 200 tank truck companies that
transport more than 80 percent of the volume hauled in this narrowly-
defined industry. Most NTTC members are regional, family-owned tank
truck businesses that specialize in bulk transportation of hazardous
products, such as petroleum products, chemicals, gases, and hazardous
wastes. These companies also haul non-hazardous materials such as bulk
foods and dry bulk products such as cement or plastic pellets.
Section 393.25(e) of the FMCSRs requires 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. NTTC seeks an exemption to allow motor carriers
operating tank trailers to install a red or amber brake-activated
pulsating lamp in the upper center position or in an upper dual
outboard position on the rear of the trailers, in addition to the
steady-burning brake lamps required by the FMCSRs. NTTC contends that
the addition of the brake-activated pulsating lamp will improve safety,
and states that research shows that pulsating brake lamps installed in
addition to required steady-burning red brake lamps improve visibility
and prevent accidents. NTTC also noted that FMCSA has previously
granted a similar, but not identical, temporary exemption to one of its
member companies, Groendyke Transport, Inc. (Groendyke), based in part
on Groendyke's real-world experience demonstrating that use of amber
pulsating brake-activated warning lamps in addition to steady-burning
red brake lamps had decreased the frequency of rear-end accidents
involving its fleet of tank trailers (84 FR 17910; April 26, 2019).
NTTC cited several studies conducted by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), another agency in the U.S.
Department of Transportation, on the issues of rear-end crashes,
distracted driving, and braking signals. NTTC 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.
Beginning in the second quarter of 2015, Groendyke began installing
amber brake-activated pulsating lamps on some of its fleet without
authorization from FMCSA to compare the frequency of rear-end
collisions between (1) trailers equipped with both a 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
[[Page 63645]]
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.
The exemption requested by NTTC would apply to all motor carriers
operating tank trailers, and would permit those motor carriers to
install a red or amber brake-activated pulsating lamp in the upper
center position or in an upper dual outboard position on the rear of
the trailers, in addition to the steady-burning brake lamps required by
the FMCSRs. NTTC states that the additional brake-activated warning
lamp(s) will not have an adverse impact on safety, and that adherence
to the terms and conditions of the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety
achieved without the exemption.
Comments
FMCSA published a notice of the NTTC application in the Federal
Register on April 2, 2020, and asked for public comment (85 FR 18634).
The Agency received comments from the Truckload Carrier Association
(TCA), the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI), the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance (CVSA), the American Trucking Associations (ATA), and
25 individuals.
TCA, TSEI, and ATA each supported granting the application. CVSA
and VDOT supported the use of amber brake-activated pulsating warning
lamps, but were opposed to the use of red brake-activated pulsating
warning lamps.
TCA cited its support for Groendyke's similar application for
temporary exemption, and highlighted the safety benefits of a 33.7
percent reduction in rear-end collisions when using an amber brake-
activated pulsating lamp.
Further, TCA stated:
All tank carriers have a high stake in ensuring their trailers
are safe since they are possibly hauling flammable fuel or liquid
hazardous materials. Being involved in a rear-end collision not only
could result in the loss of cargo, but also could potentially
threaten the lives of the truck driver, the driver of the vehicle
causing the collision, and others in the surrounding area. Since
NTTC is not requesting for tank truck carriers to be exempt from the
regulations on required steady-burning lamps, but rather is asking
to be allowed to install additional equipment with pulsating lamps,
TCA believes it is in the best interest of the industry for FMCSA to
grant the requested flexibility. The baseline safety of the required
steady-burning lamps will continue to be in place on these tank
trailers even if the additional pulsating brake lamps are installed.
ATA believes that granting the exemption will permit tank truck
carriers in addition to Groendyke to similarly reduce their rear-end
crashes, in furtherance of FMCSA's primary safety mission.
Specifically, ATA stated:
FMCSA and NHTSA research have demonstrated the potential
benefits of alternative rear signaling systems to reduce rear-end
crashes. Rear-end crashes which amount to roughly 30% of all crashes
are frequently attributed to a following vehicle's failure or delay
to respond to the lead vehicle's application of brakes to
decelerate.
Consistent with the DOT reports and research, motor carriers
like Groendyke recognize the potential of ERS [Enhanced Rear
Signaling] 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.
TSEI stated that ample research has demonstrated that the use of
pulsating brake lamps increases visibility of equipment and vehicles
and would maintain operational safety levels, but also implement more
efficient and effective operations. TSEI stated that by granting NTTC's
application, the Agency would further its Beyond Compliance Program.
VDOT supports the intent of the proposed exemption to promote the
safety of motor carriers operating tank trailers, and states that
allowing commercial tank trailers to use brake-activated pulsating
lamps may improve the reaction time of other motorists when the
commercial vehicle is slowing down or stopping. VDOT supports
developing standard equipment, and recommends that the Agency authorize
the use of only amber brake-activated flashing lights, because amber
lights are typically used to denote potential unsafe conditions or to
denote caution. VDOT expressed concern that red brake-activated
flashing lights on tanker trucks may cause confusion and may prompt
unintended and/or undesirable actions, given that flashing red lights
are typically displayed by vehicles responding to emergencies.
CVSA agrees with NTTC's assessment that the collected data supports
the safety benefits of amber brake-activated pulsating lamps, and
supports allowing them to be installed on the rear of tank trailers.
However, CVSA is opposed to the use of red brake-activated pulsating
warning lamps which are typically associated with emergency vehicles.
CVSA states that allowing red pulsating lamps on the rear of tank
trailers may negatively impact the driving public's recognition and
response to emergency vehicles. CVSA noted that many States have laws
prohibiting nonemergency vehicles from having pulsating red lights.
CVSA is concerned that if the exemption is granted to allow the
installation and use of red pulsating lights, it would be in direct
conflict with laws in several States. CVSA notes that while amber
brake-activated pulsating lights have a demonstrated safety benefit,
red brake-activated pulsating lamps would likely have unintended safety
impacts related to emergency vehicles.
Twenty-four individuals supported, and one opposed, the exemption.
Several of the commenters identified themselves as Safety Directors for
motor carriers operating tank trailers, and fully supported the
temporary exemption, noting that their respective carriers have
experienced multiple rear-end collisions throughout years of operation.
Those safety directors noted that other motorists are frequently not
paying attention, and that many rear-end crashes of tanker trailers
hauling hazardous material occur when stopped at railroad crossings.
These individual commenters believe that any technology that has been
shown to reduce rear-end crashes should be allowed, and cited various
benefits of the red and 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 weather
conditions.
One individual expressed concern that depending on the brightness
and speed of the pulsating brake-activated warning lamps, and their
positioning close to the standard brake lights and turn signals,
following drivers may be (1) distracted and (2) confused regarding the
ability to determine whether the vehicle is turning or not. This
individual acknowledged that his experience was with low boy trailers,
and not with tanker trailers as identified in subject application.
FMCSA Decision
The FMCSA has evaluated the NTTC exemption application, and the
comments received. The Agency
[[Page 63646]]
believes that granting the temporary exemption to allow motor carriers
operating tank trailers to install a red or amber brake-activated
pulsating lamp in the upper center position or in an upper dual
outboard position on the rear of the trailers in addition to the
steady-burning brake lamps required by the FMCSRs, will likely 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 collected 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
provided only 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 (e.g., 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 inattentive 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 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.
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
[[Page 63647]]
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, compared to red, 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 VDOT, CVSA and other commenters
that flashing, rotating, or pulsating red lamps are generally permitted
only on emergency vehicles. FMCSA notes that Police and other State
authorized emergency vehicles utilize high intensity, constantly
flashing, rotating or pulsating red lamps visible from all directions
on the vehicle and that continuously operate when activated. The amber
or red brake-activated pulsating lamps requested by NTTC are visible
only to the rear of the tanker trailer, and are similar in lamp
intensity and flash rate of the vehicle's standard rear hazard warning
lamps system currently allowed by the regulations. 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 red or amber brake-activated
pulsating lamp in the upper center position or in an upper dual
outboard position on the rear of the trailers, in addition to the
steady-burning brake lamps required by the regulations, 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 October 8, 2020 and ending October 8, 2025. During the
temporary exemption period, motor carriers operating tank trailers will
be allowed to install a red or amber brake-activated pulsating lamp in
the upper center position or in an upper dual outboard position on the
rear of the trailers, 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) Motor carriers operating
tank trailers fail 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 motor carriers operating tank trailers use of a red or amber
brake-activated pulsating lamp in the upper center position or in an
upper dual outboard position on the rear of the trailers, 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. States may, but
are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to
operations in intrastate commerce.
James W. Deck,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-22233 Filed 10-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P