An Illinois-based cargo van operator filed a petition with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for a review of an exemption granted to autonomous truck developer Aurora Operations.
- Kostas Giannoulias filed the petition Sept. 8, asking the court to review the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s July 9 order granting Aurora a waiver from the warning device placement and steady-burning lamp requirements.
- The waiver also covered requirements for the types and number of warning devices.
- FMCSA's move opens the door for more broad uptake by other carriers and developers by allowing those who notify FMCSA in writing of their intent to comply with the waiver to use cab-mounted warning beacons in lieu of warning devices.
- Giannoulias charged that FMCSA's July 9 wavier extension was out of order, issued without notice to the public.
- The agency didn't respond to Overdrive queries, but the petition is under court review -- FMCSA must respond by Sept. 21.
The Aurora company was already operating under a limited exemption prior to the July 9 extension, but Giannoulias claimed FMCSA did not follow proper procedure in granting the extension.
FMCSA fielded public comments on the extension back in April. The limited waiver already in place was set to expire July 9, and Aurora was requesting a full, five-year exemption. FMCSA did grant an extension by letter to Aurora for 90 days through Oct. 9.
The agency did not, however, publish notice of its decision to grant the extension in the Federal Register.
FMCSA did not respond to a request from Overdrive for comment on why the extension was not published in the Federal Register, nor for comment on Giannoulias’ petition for review.
In his petition to the court, Giannoulias said he “regularly hauls interstate freight by commercial cargo van on the Dallas-Houston corridor, where Aurora publicly announced driverless operations, and on the Dallas-Oklahoma City and related corridors within Aurora’s expanding autonomous freight network.”
[Related: Aurora adds 1K-mile 'driverless' lane: Will solo HOS regs apply for the in-cab observer?]
FMCSA’s exemption, then, “exposes him, in a far lighter commercial vehicle, to the particularized roadside hazard of driverless Class 8 trucks using cab-mounted beacons instead of federally required warning triangles.”
Giannoulias asked the court to review the waiver because he claims it:
- Exceeds U.S. Code Section 31315’s authority “by continuing an uninterrupted commercial-deployment program through serial waivers and promised reissuance”;
- Creates a prospective class through its email opt-in mechanism;
- Uses operative waiver relief to gather the evidence needed to justify that relief “while evading the public, data-collection, safety-analysis and reporting safeguards Congress described for pilot programs”;
- Disregards FMCSA’s written-request and staff-review procedures;
- Was issued before the previous waiver’s complete term report was due and rests on an “unreasoned and unsupported equivalent-safety finding.”
[Related: Another large fleet makes autonomous move]
Giannoulias asked that the court vacate and set aside the waiver; remand it to FMCSA; stay the order pending review; expedite proceedings to prevent the short-duration order and its promised reissuance from evading effective review; and grant any other appropriate relief.
On that front, the court is considering the emergency motion for immediate administrative stay, the stay pending review and expedited proceedings, and has ordered FMCSA to file its response to the motion for stay by Sept. 21.
[Related: Autonomous trucking firms want warning-device waiver extension]
