[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 81 (Friday, April 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17910-17913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08463]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0223]


Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application 
for an Exemption From Groendyke Transport, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
announces its decision to grant Groendyke Transport, Inc.'s (Groendyke) 
application for a limited 5-year exemption to allow the use of an amber 
brake-activated pulsating lamp on its trailers in addition to the 
steady-burning brake lamps required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations (FMCSR). The FMCSRs require all exterior lamps (both 
required lamps and any additional lamps) to be steady-burning, except 
turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, school bus warning 
lamps, amber warning lamps or flashing warning lamps on tow trucks and 
commercial motor vehicles (CMV) transporting oversized loads, and 
warning lamps on emergency and service vehicles authorized by State or 
local authorities. The Agency has determined that granting the 
exemption to allow the use of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp 
in addition to the required steady-burning brake lamps on the rear of 
Groendyke's trailers would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent 
to or greater than the level of safety provided by the regulation.

DATES: This exemption is effective April 26, 2019 and ending April 26, 
2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside 
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV, (202) 366-0676, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments submitted to notice requesting public comments on the 
exemption application, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit 
Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document 
management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. 
The docket number is listed at the beginning of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant 
exemptions from certain parts of the FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish a 
notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 
381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to 
inspect the information relevant to the application, including any 
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide 
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, 
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a 
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be 
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of 
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application 
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving 
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is 
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain 
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed 
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Groendyke's Application for Exemption

    Groendyke applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to allow 
installation of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp on the rear of 
its trailers in addition to the steady-burning brake lamps required by 
the FMCSRs. A copy of the application is included in the docket 
referenced at the beginning of this notice.
    Groendyke is a carrier of flammable fuel and liquid hazardous 
materials. Groendyke has a fleet of approximately 900 trucks and 1,440 
trailers, and employs over 1,200 individuals, including approximately 
900 drivers. In its application, Groendyke states ``Groendyke assessed 
what it could do to prevent other drivers from rear ending Groendyke 
trailers, and determined that increasing visibility of Groendyke 
trailers would be an efficient means to prevent rear ending accidents. 
To do this, Groendyke searched for ways to cause its braking system to 
capture the attention of other drivers faster and more completely.''
    Section 393.25(e) of the FMCSRs requires all exterior lamps (both

[[Page 17911]]

required lamps and any additional lamps) to be steady-burning, except 
turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, school bus warning 
lamps, amber warning lamps or flashing warning lamps on tow trucks and 
commercial motor vehicles (CMV) transporting oversized loads, and 
warning lamps on emergency and service vehicles authorized by State or 
local authorities. In its application, Groendyke seeks an exemption to 
allow installation of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp to the 
rear of its trailers. The brake-activated pulsating lamp would be 
positioned in the upper center portion of the trailer. In support of 
its application, Groendyke contends that the addition of the brake-
activated pulsating lamp will improve safety, and states that (1) 
research shows that pulsating brake lamps in addition to steady burning 
red brake lamps improves visibility and prevents accidents, (2) its own 
experience has demonstrated that pulsating brake lamps in addition to 
steady burning red brake lamps has decreased the frequency of rear-end 
accidents involving its fleet, and (3) similar exemptions exist for 
other classes of vehicles.
    Research. Groendyke cited several studies conducted by the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, another agency in the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, on the issues of rear-end crashes, 
distracted driving, and braking signals. Groendyke stated:

    Research indicates that there are ways to improve the attention-
getting qualities of braking systems. Including a pulsating brake 
lamp on a lead vehicle has quantifiable effect on the drivers of 
following vehicles and measurably reduces rear-end collisions. 
Drivers are redirected and altered faster and more efficiently when 
a pulsating brake lamp draws their attention to the lead vehicle. As 
a result, rear-end collisions, can be prevented or at least reduced.

    Groendyke Experience. Beginning in the second quarter of 2015, 
Groendyke began an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp on some of its 
fleet without authorization from FMCSA to compare the frequency of 
rear-end collisions between (1) trailers equipped with both centrally-
mounted amber brake-activated pulsating lamp and the required steady-
burning lamps, and (2) trailers equipped with only the steady-burning 
lamps required by the FMCSRs. As of July 31, 2017, Groendyke had 
outfitted 632 of its 1,440 trailers with an amber brake-activated 
pulsating lamp.
    Data gathered by Groendyke between January 2015 and July 2017 show 
that trailers equipped with both the amber brake-activated pulsating 
lamp and the steady-burning brake lamps were involved in 33.7 percent 
fewer rear-end collisions as compared to vehicles equipped with only 
the steady-burning brake lamps. Groendyke also analyzed its data to 
determine whether the presence of the amber brake-activated pulsating 
lamp improved outcomes when drivers were slowing or stopping at 
railroad crossings.\1\ Groendyke found that trailers equipped with the 
amber brake-activated pulsating lamp were not involved in a rear-end 
crash at a railroad crossing during the same time period. Groendyke 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As cargo tank operators hauling hazardous materials, 
Groendyke drivers are required to stop or slow significantly at 
railroad crossings (49 CFR 392.10-392.12). Groendyke notes that 
railroad crossings are a significant source of rear-end collisions 
at Groendyke and elsewhere because non-commercial drivers may not 
anticipate stops at railroad crossings.

    The results of the Groendyke Brake Warning Device Campaign are 
clear: The frequency of rear-end collisions is markedly lower when 
trailers are outfitted with pulsating brake lamps in addition to the 
steady-burning lamps required by the FMCSRs. The pulsating brake 
lamps draw other drivers' attention to what is happening with the 
vehicle in front more effectively and more quickly than steady 
burning lamps. In the interest of safety and productivity, Groendyke 
desires to implement the Groendyke Brake Warning Device Campaign on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the rest of its fleet without risking violation of the FMCSRs.

    Exemptions for Other Classes of Vehicles. In its application, 
Groendyke noted that the current requirements of 49 CFR 393.25(e) 
specifically exclude tow trucks and CMVs from the requirements that all 
exterior lamps be steady-burning. Groendyke contends that ``Allowing an 
exemption for drivers of hazardous loads would be consistent with the 
intent of the regulation.''
    The exemption would apply only to Groendyke's trailers. If 
approved, Groendyke would be permitted to install an amber brake-
activated pulsating lamp positioned in the upper center portion of the 
rear of its trailer. Groendyke stated that the additional brake lamp 
will not have an adverse impact on safety, and that adherence to the 
terms and conditions of the exemption would achieve a level of safety 
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety achieved without the 
exemption.

Comments

    FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register 
on July 30, 2018, and asked for public comment (83 FR 36662). The 
Agency received thirty-four comments from: the Truckload Carrier 
Association (TCA); the National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. (NTTC); the 
American Trucking Associations (ATA); and 31 individuals.
    TCA, NTTC, and ATA each supported granting the application to allow 
the use of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp in addition to the 
steady-burning brake lamps required by the FMCSRs. TCA cited 
Groendyke's 33.7 percent reduction in rear-end collisions when using 
the amber brake-activated pulsating lamp, and the fact that other types 
of CMVs are permitted to use flashing lights in supporting a decision 
to grant the exemption. TCA stated that several of its members ``have 
used these pulsating lamps in the past, and we believe that greater 
flexibility on using them moving forward would provide meaningful 
safety improvements for the industry.''
    Further, TCA stated:

    Since Groendyke is not requesting to be exempted from the 
regulations on required steady-burning lamps, but rather is asking 
to be allowed to install additional equipment with pulsating lights, 
TCA believes it is in the best interest of the industry for FMCSA to 
grant Groendyke the requested flexibility. The baseline safety of 
the required steady-burning lamps will continue to be in place on 
Groendyke's trucks even if the additional pulsating brake lamps are 
installed.

    NTTC also cited Groendyke's 33.7 percent reduction in rear-end 
collisions when using the amber brake-activated pulsating lamp, and 
stated ``This easily meets the regulatory standard that the proposed 
exemption `would maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater 
than, the level achieved without an exemption.' '' In addition, NTTC 
strongly advocates that if FMCSA decides to grant Groendyke's exemption 
application, that the same relief should be granted to all carriers 
operating cargo tank truck trailers because ``there is no factor unique 
to Groendyke's trailers or pulsating brake lamps that cannot be 
replicated by other motor carriers.'' NTTC states that extending the 
exemption to all cargo tank trailers will ``maximize safety for the 
tank truck segment and for the Nation as a whole.'' Finally, NTTC 
recommends that FMCSA grant the exemption, and then initiate a 
rulemaking proceeding to formally incorporate the provisions of the 
exemption into the FMCSRs.
    ATA believes that grating the exemption will provide an opportunity 
to operate enhanced rear signaling (ERS) technology in a wide-range of 
real-world conditions to gather field data to further substantiate its 
benefits, and may provide NHTSA with information to assist in 
developing performance criteria and objective test procedures for ERS.
    Specifically, ATA stated:


[[Page 17912]]


    FMCSA and NHTSA research have demonstrated the potential 
benefits of enhanced rear signaling (ERS) systems. NHTSA research on 
ERS found that use of brake signal configurations on passenger cars 
which included flashing lights were effective, reducing the crash 
rate by as much as 5.1%, and the results presented by Groendyke 
indicate even greater effectiveness for similar ERS on commercial 
motor vehicles (CMVs). Additionally, FMCSA research on ERS for CMVs 
showed no unsafe following vehicle driver reactions/behaviors in 
real world testing.
    Consistent with the DOT reports and research, motor carriers 
like Groendyke recognize the potential of ERS for improving safe 
operations when compared with traditional standard brake lamps. For 
example, ERS can provide the following functions beyond what 
traditional CMV lighting and reflective devices offer: attention to 
CMVs stopped ahead; awareness of road side breakdowns; emergency 
braking; and driver confidence from both vehicles. In addition to 
safety benefits, ERS performance is superior to steady burning brake 
lamps in severe weather conditions, tail light glare and around 
infrastructure obstacles. ERS also reduces the chances of damage to 
both vehicles involved in a rear-end crash, which improves 
commercial operation uptime, CSA scores for the CMV owner, and 
traffic inconvenience.

    Twenty-one individuals submitted comments in support of 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 the amber brake-activated pulsating lamp, including 
(1) enhanced awareness that the vehicle is making a stop, especially at 
railroad crossings, and (2) increased visibility in severe winter 
weather conditions.
    Ten individuals submitted comments opposing the granting of the 
exemption. Commenters stated that use of the amber brake-activated 
pulsating lamp could potentially be distracting to the motoring public, 
and that the use of amber brake lights could be confusing as brake 
lights are required to be red in color.

FMCSA Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated the Groendyke exemption application, and 
the comments received. The Agency believes that granting the temporary 
exemption to allow the use of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp 
positioned in the upper center portion of the trailer, in addition to 
the steady burning brake lamps required by the FMCSRs, will provide a 
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of 
safety achieved without the exemption.
    Rear-end crashes generally account for approximately 30 percent of 
all crashes. These types of crashes often result from a failure to 
respond (or delays in responding) to a stopped or decelerating lead 
vehicle. Data between 2010 and 2016 show that large trucks are 
consistently three times more likely than other vehicles to be struck 
in the rear in two-vehicle fatal crashes.2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (2012), Traffic Safety Facts--2010 Data; Large 
Trucks, Report No. DOT HS 811 628, Washington, DC (June 2012).
    \3\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (2018), Traffic Safety Facts--2016 Data; Large 
Trucks, Report No. DOT HS 812 497, Washington, DC (May 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both FMCSA and NHTSA have conducted research programs regarding 
alternative rear signaling systems to address rear-end crashes. FMCSA 
has conducted research and development of an Enhanced Rear Signaling 
(ERS) system for CMVs.\4\ The study noted that while brake lights are 
activated only with the service brakes, and the visual warning is only 
provided during conditions when the lead vehicle is decelerating using 
its braking system, brake lights are not activated during other 
conditions wherein rear-end collisions can occur (i.e., the CMV is (1) 
stopped along the roadway or in traffic, (2) traveling slower, or (3) 
decelerating using an engine retarder). Because of the limitations of 
the existing brake system described above, along with issues relating 
to visual distraction, the study examined ways for CMVs to detect rear-
end crash threats and to provide drivers of following vehicles a 
supplemental visual warning--located on the lead vehicle, and in 
addition to the current brake lights--so following-vehicle drivers can 
quickly recognize impending collision threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration (2014), Expanded Research and Development of 
an Enhanced Rear Signaling System for Commercial Motor Vehicles, 
Report No. FMCSA-RRT-13-009, Washington, DC (April 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During Phase I of this effort, researchers performed crash database 
analyses to determine causal factors of rear-end collisions and to 
identify potential countermeasures. Phase II continued through 
prototype development based on recommendations from Phase I. During 
Phase II field testing, potential benefits of using such 
countermeasures were realized. During Phase III, a multi-phased 
approach was executed to design, develop, and test multiple types of 
countermeasures on a controlled test track and on public highways. 
Phase III resulted in positive results for a rear warning prototype 
system comprising 12 light-emitting diode (LED) units that would flash 
at 5 Hz to provide a visual warning to the following-vehicle drivers 
indicating that, with continued closing rate and distance, a collision 
will occur with the lead vehicle. Finally, the prototype system was 
further developed and refined to include modification of the system 
into a unit designed for simple CMV installation, collision-warning 
activation refinements, and rear lighting brightness adjustments for 
nighttime conditions. Formal closed test track and real-world testing 
were then performed to determine the ERS system collision-warning 
activation performance.
    While the efforts described above demonstrated a promising system 
for follow-on research, FMCSA ultimately decided not to pursue formal 
field operational testing of the prototype system because of concerns 
relating to (1) the cost to implement the ERS system as configured, and 
(2) fleets' willingness to invest in the technology given the cost of 
the system. Nonetheless, the preliminary research showed that the ERS 
system performed well at detecting and signaling rear-end crash threats 
and drawing the gaze of following-vehicle drivers to the forward 
roadway which if implemented, could potentially reduce the number and 
frequency of rear-end crashes into the rear of CMVs.
    Separately, NHTSA has performed a series of research studies 
intended to develop and evaluate rear signaling applications designed 
to reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes via 
enhancements to rear-brake lighting by redirecting drivers' visual 
attention to the forward roadway (for cases involving a distracted 
driver), and/or increasing the saliency or meaningfulness of the brake 
signal (for attentive drivers).5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (2009), Traffic Safety Facts--Vehicle Safety 
Research Notes; Assessing the Attention-Gettingness of Brake 
Signals: Evaluation of Optimized Candidate Enhanced Braking Signals; 
Report No. DOT HS 811 129, Washington, DC (May 2009).
    \6\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (2010), Traffic Safety Facts--Vehicle Safety 
Research Notes; Assessing the Attention-Getting Capability of Brake 
Signals: Evaluation of Candidate Enhanced Braking Signals and 
Features; Report No. DOT HS 811 330, Washington, DC (June 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initially, the study quantified the attention-getting capability 
and discomfort glare of a set of candidate rear brake lighting 
configurations, using driver judgments, as well as eye-drawing metrics. 
This study served to narrow the set of candidate lighting 
configurations to those that would most likely be carried forward for 
additional

[[Page 17913]]

study on-road. Both look-up (eye drawing) data and interview data 
supported the hypothesis that simultaneous flashing of all rear 
lighting combined with increased brightness would be effective in 
redirecting the driver's eyes to the lead vehicle when the driver is 
looking away with tasks that involve visual load.
    Subsequently, the study quantified the attention-getting capability 
of a set of candidate rear brake lighting configurations, including 
proposed approaches from automotive companies. This study was conducted 
to provide data for use in a simulation model to assess the 
effectiveness and safety benefits of enhanced rear brake light 
countermeasures. Among other things, this research demonstrated that 
flashing all lights simultaneously or alternately flashing is a 
promising signal for use in enhanced brake light applications, even at 
levels of brightness within the current regulated limits. Specifically, 
the study concluded that substantial performance gains may be realized 
by increasing brake lamp brightness levels under flashing 
configurations; however, increases beyond a certain brightness 
threshold will not return substantive performance gains.
    From the above, both FMCSA and NHTSA have conducted extensive 
research and development programs to examine alternative rear signaling 
systems to reduce the incidence of rear-end crashes. However, while 
these efforts concluded that improvements could be realized through 
rear lighting systems that flash, neither the FMCSRs nor the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) currently permit the use of 
pulsating, brake-activated lamps on the rear of CMVs.
    With respect to the use of amber lights, NHTSA has conducted 
research on the effectiveness of rear turn signal color on the 
likelihood of being involved in a rear-end crash.\7\ FMVSS No. 108 
allows rear turn signals to be either red or amber in color. The study 
concluded that amber signals show a 5.3 percent effectiveness in 
reducing involvement in two-vehicle crashes where a lead vehicle is 
rear-struck in the act of turning left, turning right, merging into 
traffic, changing lanes, or entering/leaving a parking space. The 
advantage of amber rear turn signals was shown to be statistically 
significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (2009), The Effectiveness of Amber Rear Turn 
Signals for Reducing Rear Impacts; Report No. DOT HS 811 115, 
Washington, DC (April 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA acknowledges the concerns of commenters that the amber brake-
activated pulsating lamp may be distracting or confusing to some 
motorists. At the same time, however, the Agency agrees with TCA and 
NTTC that the 33.7 percent reduction in rear-end crashes documented by 
Groendyke between January 1, 2015, and July 31, 2017, for its trailers 
that had been equipped with the additional lights is both persuasive 
and compelling given the magnitude of the rear-end crash population. 
FMCSA believes that this real-world experience, along with the FMCSA 
and NHTSA research programs that demonstrated the ability of 
alternative rear signaling systems to reduce the frequency and severity 
of rear-end crashes, is sufficient to conclude that the implementation 
of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp on the rear of Groendyke's 
trailers is likely to provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, 
or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.

Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a 5-year period, 
beginning April 26, 2019 and ending April 26, 2024. During the 
temporary exemption period, Groendyke will be allowed to install an 
amber brake-activated pulsating lamp positioned in the upper center of 
the rear of the trailer in addition to the steady burning brake lamps 
required by the FMCSRs.
    The exemption will be valid for 5 years unless rescinded earlier by 
FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Groendyke fails to 
comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the 
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained 
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not 
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 
31315(b).
    Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate 
that Groendyke's use of an amber brake-activated pulsating lamp 
positioned in the upper center of the rear of the trailer in addition 
to the steady burning brake lamps required by the FMCSRs is not 
achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately 
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if 
safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is 
not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take 
immediate steps to revoke the exemption.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall 
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that 
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to 
Groendyke operating under the exemption. States may, but are not 
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in 
intrastate commerce.

    Issued on: April 18, 2019.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-08463 Filed 4-25-19; 8:45 am]