|
|---|
|
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Meiborg Brothers, Inc., USDOT #190639 Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Byline: Vincent G. White Date: 28 June 2024 Subjects: American Government  , Safety, Trucking
Topics: Meiborg Brothers, Intellistop |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54151-54156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14262]
[[Page 54151]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0245]
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From Meiborg Brothers, Inc., USDOT #190639
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to grant an application from Meiborg Brothers,
Inc. (Meiborg, USDOT #190639) for an exemption to allow it to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with a module manufactured by
Intellistop, Inc. (Intellistop). The Intellistop module is designed to
pulse the required rear clearance, identification, and brake lamps from
a lower-level lighting intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4
times in 2 seconds when the brakes are applied and then return the
lights to a steady-burning state while the brakes remain engaged. The
Agency has determined that granting the exemption to Meiborg would
likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety achieved by the regulation.
DATES: This exemption is effective June 28, 2024 and ending June 28,
2029..
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Sutula, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV, (202) 366-9209, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; MCPSV@dot.gov.
I. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket
number ``FMCSA-2022-0245'' in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, click ``Browse Comments.''
To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in
the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number
``FMCSA-2022-0245'' in the keyword box, click ``Search,'' and chose the
document to review.
If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
II. Legal Basis
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to
regulated entities (e.g., motor carriers). 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 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(a). The Agency must
publish its decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If
granted, the notice will identify the regulatory provision from which
the applicant 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
A. Current Regulatory Requirements
Section 393.25(e) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) requires all exterior lamps (both required lamps and any
additional lamps) be steady burning, with certain exceptions not
relevant here. Two other provisions of the FMCSRs--section 393.11(a)
and section 393.25(c)--mandate that required lamps on CMVs meet the
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108
in effect at the time of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108, issued by the U.S.
Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), includes a requirement that installed brake
lamps, whether original or replacement equipment, be steady burning.
B. Applicant's Request
Meiborg applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to allow it
to operate CMVs, equipped with Intellistop's module. When the brakes
are applied, the Intellistop module is designed to pulse the rear
clearance, identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting
intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds and
then maintain the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) level of
illumination for those lamps until the brakes are released and
reapplied. Intellistop asserts that its module is designed to ensure
that if the module ever fails, the clearance, identification, and brake
lamps will default to normal OEM function and illumination.
Meiborg's application followed the Agency's October 7, 2022, denial
(87 FR 61133) of Intellistop's application for an industry-wide
exemption to allow all interstate motor carriers to operate CMVs
equipped with the Intellistop module. While the Agency determined that
the scope of the exemption Intellistop sought was too broad to ensure
that an equivalent level of safety would be achieved, the Agency
explained that individual motor carrier applications for exemption may
be more closely aligned with FMCSA authorities. Exemptions more limited
in scope would allow the Agency to ensure compliance with all relevant
FMCSA regulations because the individual exemptee would be easily
identifiable and its compliance with applicable regulations could be
monitored, thus providing a level of safety equivalent to compliance
with 49 CFR 393.25(e).
Meiborg stated that previous research demonstrated that the use of
pulsating brake-activated lamps increases the visibility of vehicles
and should lead to a significant decrease in rear-end crashes. In
support of its application, Meiborg submitted several reports of
research conducted by NHTSA on the issues of rear-end crashes,
distracted driving, and braking signals.1 2``3 This same
body of research was also referenced in Intellistop's industry-wide
[[Page 54152]]
exemption application. Relying on these studies, Meiborg stated that
the addition of brake-activated pulsating lamp(s) will not have an
adverse impact on safety and would likely maintain a level of safety
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety achieved without the
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See NHTSA Study--Evaluation of Enhanced Brake Lights Using
Surrogate Safety Metrics https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811127.pdf; As part of the General Findings the NHTSA study
report concluded that ``rear lighting continues to look promising as
a means of reducing the number and severity of rear-end crashes.''
\2\ See also NHTSA Study--Enhanced Rear Lighting and Signaling
Systems https://tinyurl.com/y2romx76 or https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/task_3_results_0.pdf; As part of the conclusions
NHTSA found that enhanced, flashing brake lighting ``demonstrated
improvements in brake response times and other related performance
measures.''
\3\ See also NHTSA--Traffic Safety Facts https://tinyurl.com/yxglsdax or https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/tsf811128.pdf; which concluded that flashing brake lights were a
promising signal for improving attention-getting during brake
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at
the beginning of this notice.
IV. Comments
FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register
on February 1, 2023, and asked for public comment (88 FR 6804). The
Agency received 18 comments from organizations and individuals
including the American Trucking Associations (ATA); Intellistop, Inc.;
the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA); the Transportation
Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI); and 14 other commenters. Seventeen
of the commenters favored the exemption application, while TSEI
expressed concerns.
TSEI reiterated comments it had previously made in support of the
safety benefits of brake-activated warning lamps when used in
conjunction with steady burning red brake lamps as well as its prior
support of the exemption requests from Groendyke Transport, National
Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC), and Grote Industries. Despite these
previous expressions of support for the potential benefits of some
brake warning lamp configurations, TSEI stated that it is concerned
about any exemption permitting the pulsing of lamps that are currently
required to be steady burning without a thorough consideration of
safety data and research on the level of notice and comment rulemaking.
Accordingly, TSEI stated that the aim of future rulemaking should be to
ensure consistent application across all vehicles equipped with such
pulsating lamps and recommended that the Agency engage in a formal
rulemaking to amend part 393 to allow for pulsating brake lamps.
ATA supported Meiborg's request and stated that enhanced rear
signaling (ERS) can provide functionality beyond what traditional CMV
lighting and reflective devices offer, including drawing attention to
CMVs stopped ahead; increasing awareness of roadside breakdowns;
notification of emergency braking; and improving driver confidence both
in the ERS-equipped CMVs and in the following vehicle. ATA also stated
that, in addition to these safety benefits, ERS performance is superior
to that of steady burning brake lamps in conditions of severe weather,
taillight glare, and around infrastructure obstacles. Specifically, ATA
noted that this ``request by Meiborg presents another opportunity for
the DOT to learn about the performance of ERS in real world
applications.'' Further, ATA stated that ``[it] believes the exemption
process is well-suited for these kinds of situations, where the DOT can
monitor small, controlled deployments to learn about benefits and costs
and gather important data to make sound judgments on a broader industry
exemption or change in regulations.''
ATA recommended the Agency provide clear guidance in the terms and
conditions of the exemption grant to aid the Agency in monitoring the
exemption for unintended consequences and aid the Applicant in
understanding expectations for potential renewal of the exemption
application. ATA further commented that FMCSA should work with industry
to develop research efforts that examine the performance of ERS to
supplement future DOT decisions on ERS technologies.
The NTEA expressed concern that some of its members who are
manufacturers and alterers of motor vehicles receive requests from
fleet operators to install brake-activated pulsating warning lamps on
certain new vehicles they construct or modify. As manufacturers of new
motor vehicles, NTEA members are required to certify that these
vehicles comply with applicable FMVSS. NTEA noted that FMCSA does not
have the authority to exempt CMV manufacturers from their obligation to
certify FMVSS compliance. It recommended the Agency include in the
terms and conditions of the exemption a statement of the
responsibilities of the carrier and manufacturer, and of the conditions
under which repair facilities may undertake modifications of brake-
activated warning lamps. NTEA specifically requested that FMCSA ``make
clear that [this] exemption does not currently change any NHTSA
regulations applying to the certification of federal motor vehicle
safety standards,'' if it grants the exemption.
Intellistop supported the Applicant's request for exemption. It
commented that for over 20 years, multiple States have allowed pulsing
or flashing of brake lamps. Intellistop also asserted many State driver
training schools recommend tapping brakes to warn other motorists when
a CMV is slowing or stopping. Intellistop stated that it is unlikely
that other motorists would confuse the use of their module with the
recommendation to tap brakes when a CMV is slowing or stopping, as
``[s]eeing brake lights flash is a commonly communicated method to
alert other drivers that a vehicle is slowing down or stopping.''
Fourteen other comments supported the exemption. These commenters
believe that any technology that has been shown to reduce rear-end
crashes should be allowed and cited various benefits of brake activated
pulsating lamps, including (1) enhanced awareness that the vehicle is
making a stop, especially at railroad crossings, and (2) increased
visibility in severe weather conditions. Several commenters noted that
37 States currently allow brake lamps to flash. In addition, three
commenters noted that the guidelines developed by the American Driver
and Traffic Safety Education Association advise driving instructors to
teach new drivers to pulse brake lamps when stopping to improve
visibility.
V. FMCSA Equivalent Level of Safety Analysis
Meiborg petitioned FMCSA to grant an exemption from 49 CFR
393.25(e)--requiring certain exterior lamps to be steady burning--to
allow it to operate CMVs equipped with Intellistop's module. FMCSA has
determined that in order for Meiborg to operate vehicles in compliance
with the FMCSRs, an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) must be accompanied
by limited exemptions from 49 CFR 393.11(a) and 393.25(c), both of
which mandate that required lamps on CMVs operated in interstate
commerce must, ``at a minimum, meet the applicable requirements of 49
CFR 571.108 (FMVSS No. 108) in effect at the time of manufacture of the
vehicle.'' FMCSA grants exemptions only when it determines ``such
exemption[s] would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the
exemption[s].''
Rear-end crashes generally account for approximately 30 percent of
all crashes. They often result from a failure to respond (or delays in
responding) to a stopped or decelerating lead vehicle. Data on crashes
that occurred between 2010 and 2016 show that large trucks are
consistently three times more likely than other vehicles to be struck
in the rear in two-vehicle fatal crashes.4 5
[[Page 54153]]
FMCSA is deeply interested in the development and deployment of
technologies that can reduce the frequency, severity, and risk of rear-
end crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (2012), Traffic Safety Facts--2010 Data; Large
Trucks, Report No. DOT HS 811 628, Washington, DC (June 2012),
available at: https://crashstats.crashstats.nhtsa.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811628.
\5\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (2018), Traffic Safety Facts--2016 Data; Large
Trucks, Report No. DOT HS 812 497, Washington, DC (May 2018),
available at: https://crashstats.crashstats.nhtsa.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812497.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both FMCSA and NHTSA have examined alternative rear-signaling
systems to reduce the incidence of rear-end crashes. While research
efforts concluded that reductions in the incidence of rear-end crashes
could be realized through certain rear-lighting systems that flash,\6\
the FMCSRs do not currently permit the use of pulsating, brake-
activated lamps on the rear of CMVs. FMCSA believes that the two
agencies' previous research programs demonstrate that rear-signaling
systems may be able to ``improve attention getting'' to reduce the
frequency and severity of rear-end crashes. Any possible benefit must
be balanced against a possible risk of increased driver distraction and
confusion. In balancing these interests, the Agency was compelled to
deny the Intellistop application for exemption, believing the industry-
wide scope of the request was too broad for the Agency to effectively
monitor for the potential risk of driver distraction or confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Expanded Research and Development of an Enhanced Rear
Signaling System for Commercial Motor Vehicles: Final Report,
William A. Schaudt et al. (Apr. 2014) (Report No. FMCSA-RRT-13-009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency acknowledges the limitations of the research studies
completed to date and the overall data deficiencies in this area.
Nonetheless, as noted in its Intellistop decision, the Agency
recognizes that existing data do suggest a potential safety value in
the use of alternative rear-signaling systems, generally. Specifically,
FMCSA considered NHTSA's research concerning the development and
evaluation of rear-signaling applications designed to reduce the
frequency and severity of rear-end crashes via enhancements to rear-
brake lighting. The NHTSA study examined enhancements for (1)
redirecting drivers' visual attention to the forward roadway (for cases
involving a distracted driver) and (2) increasing the saliency or
meaningfulness of the brake signal (for inattentive drivers).\7\ The
research considered the attention-getting capability and discomfort
glare of a set of candidate rear brake lighting configurations using
driver judgments and eye-drawing metrics. The results of this research
served to narrow the set of candidate lighting configurations to those
that would most likely be carried forward for additional on-road study.
Based on subjective participant responses, this research indicates some
form of flashing or variation in brake light brightness may be more
than two times more attention-getting than the baseline, steady-burning
brake lights for distracted drivers.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See NHTSA Study--Evaluation of Enhanced Brake Lights Using
Surrogate Safety Metrics https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811127.pdf.
\8\ Ibid. While data demonstrated that brighter flashing lights
were the most attention-getting combination for distracted drivers
in this study, flashing lights with no increase in brightness were
still more effective at capturing a distracted driver's attention
than the baseline steady-burning brake lamps. Both look-up (eye
drawing) data and interview data supported the hypothesis that
simultaneous flashing of all rear lighting combined with increased
brightness would be effective in redirecting the driver's eyes to
the lead vehicle when the driver is looking away with tasks that
involve visual load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some of the data collected may not be statistically
significant, the study results nonetheless indicate that additional
efforts to get drivers' attention when they are approaching the rear of
a CMV that is stopping may be helpful to reduce driver distraction and,
ultimately, rear-end crashes. This was among several reasons
researchers concluded that the promising nature of enhanced brake
lighting systems warranted additional work and research. FMCSA believes
the acquisition of relevant data through real-world monitoring is of
critical importance as the Agency continues to seek new and innovative
options for reducing crashes. This is particularly true given the data
limitations noted in previous studies.
Despite finding a potential safety value in the use of alternative
rear-signaling technology, in the Intellistop decision the Agency
determined that the data presently available did not justify an
exemption to allow all interstate motor carriers to alter the
performance of an FMVSS-required lighting device (i.e., stop lamps) on
any CMV. In contrast, however, Meiborg's application requests an
exemption for CMV operations by only one interstate motor carrier. As
FMCSA noted in its denial of Intellistop's industry-wide exemption
application, individual motor carrier exemption requests typically
align more closely with FMCSA and NHTSA authorities to ensure
compliance with all other applicable regulations and with the safety
performance of the smaller population of affected motor carriers. With
an individual motor carrier exemption, the Agency can also more easily
monitor compliance with terms and conditions intended to ensure
operations conducted under the exemption do in fact provide an
equivalent level of safety. Meiborg's application demonstrates why this
is particularly true, since the vehicles it operates would be easily
identifiable, and compliance with NHTSA's ``make inoperative''
prohibition and other related regulations could be readily checked.
The Agency's decision to grant this exemption is based on the data
suggesting enhanced rear signal systems, such as pulsing brake lights,
may help reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes, as well
as on the limited number of vehicles operating under the exemption.
Meiborg currently operates a nationwide fleet of approximately 170
vehicles. The installation of the module on CMVs operated by a single
motor carrier provides the opportunity for the Agency to collect data
on the effects of pulsing brake lights in real-world conditions. The
terms and conditions FMCSA imposes through this exemption will ensure
appropriate Federal oversight in the use of these devices on a definite
and limited number of CMVs utilizing a phased in approach.
Initially restricting the application of this exemption to a
limited portion of Meiborg's fleet will allow for a comparison between
the crash involvement of Meiborg CMVs equipped with the Intellistop
device, those without the device, and the overall crash involvement of
CMVs operated by similarly sized motor carriers with similar operations
and overall safety performance. Data collected through this exemption
and any other similar exemptions the Agency may grant in the future
will allow for an evaluation of how the Intellistop module may improve
following vehicle driver responses to CMV braking. Consideration of the
scope of any particular carrier's operation and the number and types of
vehicles the carrier operates are critical to ensuring FMCSA gathers
the most relevant data as it considers safety benefits gained by the
deployment of these rear brake lamp systems. The Agency's incremental
approach in granting this limited exemption will also allow FMCSA to
investigate and respond as appropriate to any incidents of alleged
driver confusion attributable to use of the brake lamp systems in CMV
operations, which some commenters have raised as a potential concern.
FMCSA acknowledges that all other pulsating rear lamp exemptions
the Agency previously granted involved the addition of non-mandatory
auxiliary lights while the Intellistop module that Meiborg seeks to
install alters the
[[Page 54154]]
functionality of original equipment manufacturers' lamps. Nonetheless,
those previous exemptions are instructive, most notably Groendyke. The
Groendyke exemption involved auxiliary lamps rather than required
lighting, but, like the Intellistop system, the modulation of the
auxiliary lamps in the Groendyke exemption occurs during braking. More
importantly, the Groendyke case also involved a technology installed on
a single carrier's CMVs, which allowed the Agency more realistically to
monitor the exemptee's compliance with other applicable regulations.
When granting the exemption, FMCSA found Groendyke's previous
experience with brake-activated pulsating warning lamps, which resulted
in a 33.7 percent reduction in rear-end crashes, to be compelling.
Through the granting of the Groendyke exemption, the Agency was able to
collect additional real-world data about the operation of the module at
issue. Similarly, limited exemptions with narrowly tailored terms and
conditions permitting the use of the Intellistop module will allow the
Agency to collect data about the reliability and safety benefits of an
integrated alternative rear-signaling system.
FMCSA notes that Meiborg failed to provide any evidence beyond what
is publicly available about the integration of the Intellistop module
with its CMVs' existing systems or to support the claim that a
malfunction of the device would result in the brake lights returning to
OEM functionality. Nonetheless, based on the Agency's understanding of
the device's design and assertions made in publicly available
materials, FMCSA believes concerns about both the reliability and
integration of the device are sufficiently alleviated in this instance
because of the narrow scope of the exemption and the stringent
requirements imposed by the Agency in the terms and conditions. Any
evidence that module failure results in anything less than a return to
brake light OEM functionality will result in revocation of the
exemption.
Likewise, granting this exemption to an easily identifiable carrier
alleviates concerns the Agency previously articulated about its
inability to monitor compliance with NHTSA's ``make inoperative''
prohibition. FMCSA can monitor compliance with this exemption and
ensure that Meiborg installs the module only on its own CMVs.
Notwithstanding the promise the Agency sees in this technology,
exemptions are warranted only if the applicant can demonstrate that an
equivalent level of safety likely will be maintained. For this reason,
the Agency believes it is important to consider the safety record of
the applicant motor carrier. Meiborg's existing on-road safety
performance record warrants granting this exemption to collect safety
performance data in a limited set of operations. Meiborg's out-of-
service (OOS) rate is below the national average, with a vehicle OOS
rate of only 16.9 percent (national average--21.4 percent), a driver
OOS rate of only 2 percent (national average--6 percent), and hazardous
material OOS rate of 0 (national average--4.5 percent). Meiborg
maintains a Satisfactory safety rating.
FMCSA acknowledges that the research described above did not fully
address all the implications of allowing pulsating stop lamps,
especially by automobiles where stop lamp design is stylized and often
brand-specific, and that it remains unclear whether deviation from the
uniform brake-light patterns of CMVs may cause confusion among highway
users when the lamps are pulsated during braking. When Intellistop
sought an industry-wide exemption, FMCSA concluded that the potential
risks of widespread adoption outweighed the potential benefits. But
FMCSA reaches a different conclusion here, where any risks will be more
limited and easier to monitor. FMCSA notes, moreover, that the research
suggests that the use of rear-signaling systems may be a means to
reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes involving CMVs,
as do the reductions in rear-end crashes reported by Groendyke (84 FR
17910, April 26, 2019) utilizing an auxiliary flashing rear-signaling
system. These facts and the specific safety record of the applicant
motor carrier support the conclusion that permitting the use of
Intellistop's pulsating-lamp module among a relatively small, definite
number of vehicles of a single motor carrier, subject to terms and
conditions for monitoring, is likely to achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without
the exemption.
VI. Exemption Decision
a. Grant of Exemption
FMCSA has evaluated Meiborg's exemption application and the
comments received. The Agency believes that granting a temporary
exemption to section 393.25(e), and temporary limited exemptions to the
requirements of 49 CFR 393.11(a) and 393.25(c) to allow Meiborg to
operate a defined number of CMVs equipped with Intellistop's pulsating-
brake module will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the
exemption.
This exemption is restricted to vehicles in Meiborg's fleet and
provides relief from the steady burning requirement for rear clearance,
identification, and brake lamp activation for 2 seconds following brake
activation. All other FMVSS No. 108 requirements cross-referenced or
incorporated within the FMCSRs remain in effect, with a limited
exception to the requirement in sections 393.11(a) and 393.25(c) for
only the first two seconds of brake engagement. In addition, through
the terms and conditions, FMCSA will be able to monitor to performance
of these CMVs to determine whether they were involved in a crash and
whether they appear to be overrepresented in crashes compared to a
control group (Meiborg vehicles that are not equipped with the
Intellistop unit but are operating on similar routes with similar
schedules, etc.).
The Agency has evaluated the application and hereby grants the
exemption for a 5-year period, beginning June 28, 2024 and ending June
28, 2029. During the temporary exemption period, Meiborg (Applicant)
may operate CMVs, equipped with Intellistop's module that pulses the
rear brake, clearance, and identification lamps from a lower-level
lighting intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2
seconds. This grant applies only to the ``steady-burning'' requirement
as specified in FMVSS 108 S7.3, and Tables I-a, I-b, and I-c. All other
photometric and requirements for stop lamps specified in FMVSS 108 must
still be met.
b. Terms and Conditions of the Exemption
(i). Installation of the Intellistop module. The Applicant is
responsible for installing the Intellistop module.\9\ This exemption
applies only to CMVs owned and operated by the Applicant. THE PRODUCT
MUST BE INSTALLED BY THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE ONLY. IN ACCORDANCE WITH
FEDERAL LAW (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1) AND 49 U.S.C. 30122), THE PRODUCT
MAY NOT BE INSTALLED BY ANY MANUFACTURER, DISTRIBUTOR, DEALER, RENTAL
COMPANY, OR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ FMCSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to the
FMCSRs to motor carriers, but not to CMV manufacturers or vehicle
alterers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicant may not install the Intellistop module on more than
25% of its power units, and 25% of its trailers
[[Page 54155]]
during the first year of operation under the exemption, or on more than
50% of its power units, and 50% of its trailers during the second year.
The Applicant shall provide the vehicle identification numbers for the
power units and trailers that will be operating under the exemption.
The Applicant must maintain a control group of equal size to its
power units and trailers equipped with the Intellistop unit during the
first 2 years of the exemption. And the CMVs in the control group must
operate on routes with schedules that are similar to those of the
Intellistop-equipped vehicles.
Installed modules may only be used to modulate rear clearance,
identification, and stop lamps.
Within 30 business days of its first installation of the
Intellistop module, the Applicant must notify the Agency via email at
MCPSV@dot.gov of the number and type of CMVs it is operating, or
intends to operate, with the Intellistop module installed; the module
type and/or sub-type; and any trouble-shooting, repair, or other use of
an Intellistop module covered by this exemption. Amended installation
information, including CMVs on which the device is installed or
uninstalled, may then be submitted via the quarterly submission
specified in sub-paragraph (iv) Recurring Reporting Requirements below.
If the Applicant sells or transfers ownership of any CMV equipped
with an Intellistop module under this exemption, or if the exemption is
terminated for any reason, the Applicant must remove the module and
restore the CMV to full compliance with the FMCSRs and FMVSSs prior to
the transfer of ownership, or upon termination of the exemption. The
Applicant must also certify in writing to the purchaser/transferee and
FMCSA that the CMV has been restored to compliance with the FMCSRs and
FMVSSs.
(ii). Driver Pre-Trip Vehicle Inspections. The Applicant must
ensure that each driver of an Intellistop-equipped CMV performs a pre-
trip inspection to confirm that the Intellistop module operates only
for 2 seconds and does not interfere with the normal operation of lamps
after 2 seconds. If the lamps are not steady burning after 2 seconds,
the CMV must not be dispatched until repairs are made. At the end of
each work shift, drivers must note any problems observed by or reported
to the driver concerning the Intellistop module on a driver vehicle
inspection report (see 49 CFR 396.11), and the motor carrier must
correct the problem before the vehicle is dispatched again.
(iii). Safety Notification to FMCSA. The Applicant must notify
FMCSA within 5 business days after it becomes aware, or otherwise
determines, that the continued use of a module or entire type or
subtype of module 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. Notification must be made
by sending an email to FMCSA at MCPSD@dot.gov.
(iv). Recurring Reporting Requirements. During the exemption
period, the Applicant must provide quarterly submissions to FMCSA of
the data described below. The Applicant's first quarterly submission is
due on September 30, 2024, and thereafter will be due every 3 months,
on the first business day of the month. The first quarterly submission
must include the required data beginning 60 days prior to the date of
module installation. All quarterly submissions must include data
through at least the 14th day (inclusive) of the month immediately
preceding the submission. Unless otherwise agreed to by FMCSA,
quarterly submissions must be sent via email to FMCSA at MCPSD@dot.gov.
If the Applicant does not have one or more categories of information
described below, it must, within 20 days of the effective date of this
exemption, discuss with FMCSA other available information. If the
Agency accepts such alternative information, the Applicant must submit
that data in lieu of the information specified below.
In the quarterly submission, the Applicant must provide FMCSA the
following information known to the Applicant regarding all crashes and
other incidents (``crash or incident'') involving a CMV equipped with
an Intellistop module covered by this exemption where the Intellistop
module is potentially implicated. Crashes involving a CMV equipped with
an Intellistop module that are ``head-on'' or otherwise involve only
the front of the Intellistop-equipped CMV impacting some other object
(such that the Intellistop module, without question, could not be
implicated) are not subject to this condition. For the first quarterly
submission, data must include any crash or incident occurring in the 60
days prior to installation of the Intellistop module that would have
been contained in this reporting category had the module been installed
at the time of the crash or incident. The Applicant's knowledge
includes, but is not limited to: (1) outreach from a consumer, lawyer,
or any other person or organization (via letter, email, fax, telephone
call, social media, or any other medium); (2) lawsuits to which the
Applicant is a party, or otherwise knows exist where an Intellistop
module covered by this exemption is an issue in the litigation; and (3)
insurance claims against the Applicant related to use of the
Intellistop module. When in the Applicant's possession, information
provided to FMCSA shall include:
1. The date of first contact regarding, or the Applicant's first
awareness of, the crash or incident;
2. The date of the most recent follow-up contact, if any, between
the Applicant and the other party;
3. The date, time, and location of the crash or incident;
4. A brief description of the crash or incident; and
5. The Intellistop module type and/or subtype(s) involved in the
crash or incident.
6. Information, if any, indicating that the Intellistop module is,
or was, not working as intended, or caused confusion or a roadway
hazard for either the consumer or other motorists.
Annual data. At the end of each 12-month period this exemption is
in effect, the Applicant shall, within 60 days, submit a report
detailing all information in its possession regarding crash rates and
vehicle miles traveled by CMVs equipped with a module covered by this
exemption. Additionally, the report shall specify the number and type
of CMVs the Applicant is operating under the exemption, the module type
or sub-type installed on each CMV, the affected lamps (rear clearance,
identification, and/or brake lamps), the number of covered vehicles
sold or transferred in ownership during the 12-month reporting period,
and a statement certifying that any sold/transferred vehicle(s) have
been restored to compliance with applicable FMVSSs and FMCSRs.
Meetings. The Applicant shall, at FMCSA's request, meet with FMCSA
to answer questions regarding data and information provided by the
Applicant under this exemption.
(v). Early Termination
The exemption is valid for 5 years from the date of issuance unless
rescinded earlier by FMCSA. FMCSA will terminate the exemption if: (1)
the Applicant fails to comply with the terms and conditions; (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 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).
(vi). Notification from the Public
[[Page 54156]]
Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate
that Meiborg's CMVs equipped with Intellistop's pulsating rear-light
module may not be 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.
(vii). Non-Endorsement
This limited and conditional exemption does not constitute an
endorsement of the Intellistop product by FMCSA, NHTSA, the U.S. DOT,
or any of their components, or by any of these agencies' employees or
agents. As a condition of the continued effectiveness of this
exemption, Intellistop is expressly prohibited from describing its
product as approved by, endorsed by, or otherwise authorized by FMCSA,
NHTSA, or U.S. DOT, or as compliant with Federal safety regulations.
VII. 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. States may, but
are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to
operations in intrastate commerce.
Vincent G. White,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-14262 Filed 6-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P