Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Polytech Plastic Molding, Inc., USDOT #1764512

<NOTICE> DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION <SUBAGY>Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration</SUBAGY> <DEPDOC>[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0246]</DEPDOC> <SUBJECT>Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Polytech Plastic Molding, Inc., USDOT #1764512</SUBJECT> <HD SOURCE="HED">AGENCY:</HD> Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). <HD SOURCE="HED">ACTION:</HD> Notice of final disposition; denial of exemption. <SUM> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUMMARY:</HD> The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces its decision to deny an application from Polytech Plastic Molding, Inc. (Polytech, USDOT #1764512) 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 Polytech did not demonstrate that it would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved by the regulation. </SUM> <FURINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:</HD> 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; <E T="03">MCPSV@dot.gov.</E> </FURINF> <SUPLINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:</HD> <HD SOURCE="HD1">I. Viewing Comments and Documents</HD> To view comments, go to <E T="03">www.regulations.gov,</E> insert the docket number “FMCSA-2022-0246” 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 <E T="03">www.regulations.gov,</E> insert the docket number “FMCSA-2022-0246” 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. <HD SOURCE="HD1">II. Legal Basis</HD> FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from certain parts of the FMCSRs if it “finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the exemption.” FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the <E T="04">Federal Register</E> and provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, including the applicant's safety analysis, and an opportunity for public comment on the request (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 381.315(a). 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 <E T="04">Federal Register</E> (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, if granted, must also specify the effective period and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. <HD SOURCE="HD1">III. Background</HD> <HD SOURCE="HD2">A. Current Regulatory Requirements</HD> Section 393.25(e) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (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. <HD SOURCE="HD2">B. Applicant's Request</HD> Polytech 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. Polytech'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). Polytech 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, Polytech submitted several reports of research conducted by NHTSA on the issues of rear-end crashes, distracted driving, and braking signals. <E T="51">1 2 3</E> <FTREF/> This same body of research was also referenced in Intellistop's industry-wide exemption application. Relying on these studies, Polytech 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. <FTNT> <SU>1</SU>  See NHTSA Study—Evaluation of Enhanced Brake Lights Using Surrogate Safety Metrics <E T="03">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811127.pdf;</E> 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.” <SU>2</SU>  See also NHTSA Study—Enhanced Rear Lighting and Signaling Systems <E T="03">https://tinyurl.com/y2romx76</E> or <E T="03">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/task_3_results_0.pdf;</E> As part of the conclusions NHTSA found that enhanced, flashing brake lighting “demonstrated improvements in brake response times and other related performance measures.” <SU>3</SU>  See also NHTSA—Traffic Safety Facts <E T="03">https://tinyurl.com/yxglsdax</E> or <E T="03">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/tsf811128.pdf;</E> which concluded that flashing brake lights were a promising signal for improving attention-getting during brake applications. </FTNT> A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice. <HD SOURCE="HD1">IV. Comments</HD> FMCSA published a notice of the application in the <E T="04">Federal Register</E> on February 1, 2023, and asked for public comment (88 FR 6809). The Agency received 16 comments from the American Trucking Associations (ATA); Intellistop, Inc.; the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA); the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI); and 12 other commenters. Fifteen 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. 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 Polytech'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 st ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Preview showing 10k of 23k characters. Full document text is stored and available for version comparison. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━