Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Meiborg Brothers, Inc., USDOT #190639, 54151-54156 [2024-14262]

Agencies

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[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; [email protected].

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 
[email protected] 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 [email protected].
    (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 [email protected]. 
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