|
|---|
|
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Encore Flooring & Building Products, USDOT #2329419 Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Byline: Vincent G. White Date: 23 September 2024 Subjects: American Government  , Safety, Trucking
Topic: Intellistop |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77575-77580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21681]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0242]
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From Encore Flooring & Building Products, USDOT
#2329419
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 Encore Flooring &
Building Products (Encore, USDOT #2329419) 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 Encore 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 September 23, 2024 and ending
September 24, 2029.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Sutula, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-9209; MCPSV@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket
number ``FMCSA-2022-0242'' 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-2022-0242'' 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 the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (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 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)).
[[Page 77576]]
III. Background
A. Current Regulatory Requirements
Section 393.25(e) of the FMCSRs requires all exterior lamps (both
required lamps and any additional lamps) to be steady burning, with
certain exceptions not relevant here. Two other provisions of the
FMCSRs--section 393.11(a) and section 393.25(c)--mandate that required
lamps on CMVs meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 in effect at the time of manufacture. FMVSS
No. 108, issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation's National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), includes a requirement
that installed brake lamps, whether original or replacement equipment,
be steady burning.
B. Applicant's Request
Encore 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.
Encore's application followed the Agency's October 7, 2022 (87 FR
61133), denial of Intellistop's application for an industry-wide
exemption to allow all interstate motor carriers to operate CMVs
equipped with the Intellistop module. While the Agency determined that
the scope of the exemption Intellistop sought was too broad to ensure
that an equivalent level of safety would be achieved, the Agency
explained that individual motor carrier applications for exemption may
be more closely aligned with FMCSA authorities. Exemptions more limited
in scope would allow the Agency to ensure compliance with all relevant
FMCSA regulations because the individual exemptee would be easily
identifiable and its compliance with applicable regulations could be
monitored, thus providing a level of safety equivalent to compliance
with 49 CFR 393.25(e).
Encore 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, Encore 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
exemption application. Relying on these studies, Encore 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 Encore application in the Federal
Register on January 27, 2023, and asked for public comment (88 FR
5399). The Agency received 20 comments from organizations and
individuals, including Intellistop, Inc.; Pi-Lit, Inc.; Meiborg
Brothers, Inc.; the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC); the Transportation
Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI); and 15 other commenters. Fifteen of
the commenters favored the exemption application, and five commenters
(TSEI and 4 anonymous commenters) expressed concerns.
TSEI reiterated comments it had previously made in support of the
safety benefits of brake-activated warning lamps when used in
conjunction with steady burning red brake lamps as well as its prior
support of the exemption requests from Groendyke Transport, National
Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC), and Grote Industries. Despite these
previous expressions of support for the potential benefits of some
brake warning lamp configurations, TSEI stated that it is concerned
about any exemption permitting the pulsing of lamps that are currently
required to be steady burning without a thorough consideration of
safety data and research. TSEI stated that the aim of future rulemaking
should be to ensure consistent application across all vehicles equipped
with such pulsating lamps and recommended that the Agency engage in a
formal rulemaking to amend part 393 to allow for pulsating brake lamps.
Four anonymous commenters cited various reasons for opposing the
application, mainly contending that Agency resources should be focused
on other areas. One commenter stated that the flashing lamps may be
more distracting to other motorists.
TSC supported Encore'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 ERS-equipped CMVs and in the following vehicle. TSC 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.
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. Many State driver training schools
recommend tapping brakes when a CMV is slowing or stopping to warn
other drivers. 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.
Twelve additional commenters supported granting the exemption.
These commenters believe that any technology that has been shown to
reduce rear-end crashes should be allowed and cited various benefits of
brake activated pulsating lamps, including (1) enhanced awareness that
the vehicle is making a stop, especially at railroad crossings, and (2)
increased visibility in severe weather conditions. Several commenters
noted that 37 States currently allow brake lamps to flash. In addition,
three commenters noted that the guidelines developed by the American
Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association advise driving
instructors to teach new drivers to pulse brake lamps when stopping to
improve visibility.
V. Equivalent Level of Safety Analysis
Encore requested that FMCSA grant an exemption from 49 CFR
393.25(e)--requiring certain exterior lamps to be
[[Page 77577]]
steady burning--to allow it to operate CMVs equipped with Intellistop's
module. FMCSA has determined that in order for Encore 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 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.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.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 improvements in the incidence of rear-end
crashes could be realized through certain rear-lighting systems that
flash,\6\ the FMCSRs do not currently permit the use of pulsating,
brake-activated lamps on the rear of CMVs. FMCSA believes that the two
agencies' previous research programs demonstrate that rear-signaling
systems may be able to ``improve attention getting'' to reduce the
frequency and severity of rear-end crashes. Any possible benefit must
be balanced against a possible risk of increased driver distraction and
confusion. In balancing these interests, the Agency was compelled to
deny the Intellistop application for exemption because the industry-
wide scope of the request was too broad for the Agency to effectively
monitor for the potential risk of driver distraction or confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Expanded Research and Development of an Enhanced Rear
Signaling System for Commercial Motor Vehicles: Final Report,
William A. Schaudt et al. (Apr. 2014) (Report No. FMCSA-RRT-13-009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency acknowledges the limitations of the research studies
completed to date and the overall data deficiencies in this area.
Nonetheless, as noted in its Intellistop decision, the Agency
recognizes that existing data do suggest a potential safety value in
the use of alternative rear-signaling systems, generally. Specifically,
FMCSA considered NHTSA's research concerning the development and
evaluation of rear-signaling applications designed to reduce the
frequency and severity of rear-end crashes via enhancements to rear-
brake lighting. The study examined enhancements for (1) redirecting
drivers' visual attention 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 in the study may not be
statistically significant, the study results nonetheless indicate that
additional efforts to get drivers' attention when they are approaching
the rear of a CMV that is stopping may be helpful to reduce driver
distraction and, ultimately, rear-end crashes. This was among several
reasons why researchers concluded that the promising nature of enhanced
brake lighting systems warranted additional work and research. FMCSA
believes the acquisition of relevant data through real-world monitoring
is of critical importance as the Agency continues to seek new and
innovative options for reducing crashes. This is particularly true
given the data limitations noted in previous studies.
Despite finding a potential safety value in the use of alternative
rear-signaling technology, in the Intellistop decision the Agency
determined that the data presently available did not justify an
exemption to allow all interstate motor carriers to alter the
performance of an FMVSS-required lighting device (i.e., stop lamps) on
any CMV. In contrast, however, Encore's application requests an
exemption from the steady-burning brake lamp requirement 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 more closely align with FMCSA and
NHTSA authorities to ensure compliance with all other applicable
regulations and with the safety performance of the smaller population
of affected motor carriers. With an individual motor carrier exemption,
the Agency can also more easily monitor compliance with terms and
conditions intended to ensure operations conducted under the exemption
do in fact provide an equivalent level of safety. Encore's application
demonstrates why this is particularly true, since the vehicles operated
by Encore under the exemption would be easily identifiable, and
compliance with NHTSA's ``make inoperative'' prohibition and other
related regulations could be readily checked.
The Agency's decision to 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.
Encore currently operates a nationwide fleet of approximately 223
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 finite
number of CMVs utilizing a phased-in approach.
[[Page 77578]]
Initially restricting the application of this exemption to a
limited portion of Encore's fleet will allow for a comparison between
the crash involvement of Encore 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 the Agency considers safety benefits gained
by the deployment of these rear brake lamp systems in CMV operations.
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, until recently, all pulsating rear lamp
exemptions the Agency granted involved the addition of non-mandatory
auxiliary lights while the Intellistop module that Encore seeks to
install alters the 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 module, the
modulation of the auxiliary lamps in the Groendyke exemption occurs
during braking. More importantly, Groendyke also involved a technology
installed on a number of one 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 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 Encore 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 only Encore installs the module 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. The Agency carefully considered Encore's
existing on-road safety performance record prior to granting this
exemption. While Encore's out-of-service (OOS) rate exceeds the
national average, with a vehicle out-of-service (VOOS) rate of 33.3
percent (national average--21.4 percent), FMCSA believes this to be a
statistical aberration based on a small sample size. Encore's
relatively small fleet had few inspections during the sampling period.
Thus, Encore's VOOS rate scored abnormally high. When compared to their
VOOS when Encore initially applied (66.6%), it is clear that one or two
inspections of the small fleet are affecting their VOOS rate. In
addition, Encore had no driver OOS incidents (national average 6
percent) and no hazardous materials OOS incidents (national average 4.5
percent). Encore maintains a Satisfactory safety rating.
FMCSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to the FMCSRs
only to motor carriers and not to CMV manufacturers or vehicle
alterers. FMCSA acknowledges that the research described above did not
fully address all of 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 limited and known
population 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 Encore'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 Encore to operate a limited
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 Encore'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 exempted here in sections 393.11(a) and
393.25(c) for only the first two seconds of brake engagement. In
[[Page 77579]]
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 (Encore 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 September 23, 2024 and ending
September 24, 2029. During the temporary exemption period, Encore
(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. This exemption
applies only to CMVs owned and operated by the Applicant. THE PRODUCT
MUST BE INSTALLED ONLY BY THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE. 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.
The Applicant may not install the Intellistop module on more than
50% of its power units, and 50% of its trailers during the first year
of operation under the exemption. 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 the
group of power units and trailers equipped with the Intellistop unit
during the first year 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 be used only 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 them 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 December 23, 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
[[Page 77580]]
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. Interested parties possessing
information that would demonstrate that Encore'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,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-21681 Filed 9-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P