FMCSA is accepting comments through November 25 on R.B. Stewart Petroleum Products’ five-year request to use Intellistop modules that pulse existing rear lamps four times in two seconds.
FMCSA published the carrier-specific notice on October 26
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published Federal Register document 2026-21812 on October 26, 2026. The notice concerns R.B. Stewart Petroleum Products, Inc., USDOT No. 1290158, and is assigned docket FMCSA-2026-3730.
Comments are due November 25
FMCSA will accept public comments on the application through November 25, 2026. The official Federal Register page provides electronic submission instructions and links to the docket. Commenters should identify the docket and address the specific carrier application rather than a different lighting proposal.
The application requests a five-year exemption
R.B. Stewart is asking for five years of relief from 49 CFR 393.25(e) so it can operate its commercial motor vehicles with Intellistop electronic modules. The request is carrier-specific; it would not automatically authorize other fleets, manufacturers or drivers to install and use the device.
The module changes the intensity of existing rear lamps
When the brakes are applied, the Intellistop module would pulse the existing rear clearance, identification and brake lamps from low to high intensity four times in two seconds. After that sequence, the lamps would return to steady-burning illumination for the rest of the time the brakes remain applied.
The current rule generally requires steady-burning exterior lamps
Section 393.25(e) requires exterior lamps to be steady burning except for specified categories such as turn signals, hazard-warning lamps, school-bus warning lamps and certain authorized warning lamps. The requested pulsing sequence does not fit an existing exception, which is why R.B. Stewart is seeking FMCSA relief.
The applicant cites rear-end collision visibility
R.B. Stewart argues that pulsing the lamps would make its CMVs more visible and help following drivers recognize braking sooner. The company says that could add protection against rear-end collisions, particularly for its cargo tank trailers, and cites NHTSA research on enhanced rear lighting and signaling.
Those safety claims are the applicant's position
The notice reports R.B. Stewart's arguments; it does not announce that FMCSA has independently found the device safer or that a crash reduction has been proven for this fleet. Public comments and agency review are part of the process for deciding whether the requested operation would maintain an equivalent or greater level of safety.
FMCSA denied a broader Intellistop request in 2022
On October 7, 2022, FMCSA denied Intellistop's application for an industry-wide exemption that would have allowed all motor carriers to use the module. The agency said that decision did not prevent individual carriers from applying under terms and conditions that could permit sufficient monitoring.
The 2022 denial does not predetermine this application
FMCSA is now evaluating a narrower request from one motor carrier, consistent with the path described in the 2022 decision. The new notice is neither a reversal of the industry-wide denial nor proof that R.B. Stewart will receive an exemption. The agency can grant or deny the request after reviewing the record.
The action is different from the Grote warning-lamp docket
FMCSA recently reopened comment on Grote Industries' separate request involving auxiliary rear-end collision warning lamps triggered by radar-based detection. R.B. Stewart's application involves brake-actuated pulsing of existing rear clearance, identification and brake lamps. The applicants, equipment, triggers and dockets are different.
It is also separate from NHTSA's cyan ADS-lamp proposal
NHTSA's October proposal concerns optional cyan marker lamps for vehicles equipped with automated driving systems under FMVSS 108. The R.B. Stewart notice concerns an FMCSA operational exemption from the steady-burning requirement for a motor carrier's existing rear lamps. Neither action should be used as authority for the other.
Fleets cannot treat the application as permission
A notice requesting comments does not suspend 49 CFR 393.25(e). R.B. Stewart has requested relief, but the notice does not say the exemption has been granted. Other carriers remain subject to the current rule and should not install or activate a nonconforming pulsing system based only on the pending application.
Any grant would come with a separate agency decision
Federal exemption procedures require FMCSA to publish its decision. A grant would identify the scope, duration and terms or conditions; a denial would explain the reason. Carriers should wait for the final notice and verify exactly which motor carrier, vehicles, devices and conditions it covers before changing equipment.
Useful comments should address the actual safety case
The docket can support comments on device behavior, human-factors evidence, visibility, confusion with hazard or emergency signals, maintenance, inspection, cargo-tank exposure, fleet monitoring and measurable safety performance. Evidence tied to the four-pulse sequence and carrier-specific operation is more useful than a general preference for or against flashing lamps.
Primary-source note
This report is based on Federal Register document 2026-21812, published October 26, 2026, FMCSA's official document page and the current text of 49 CFR 393.25. CDL Truck Pro has described the action as a pending carrier-specific application, not a granted exemption, nationwide authorization, equipment mandate or proven crash-reduction finding.
Continue with CDL Truck Pro
Official sources
Federal Register document 2026-21812: R.B. Stewart exemption applicationFMCSA official document page: R.B. Stewart Petroleum ProductsRegulations.gov docket FMCSA-2026-373049 CFR 393.25: Requirements for lamps other than headlampsCDL Truck Pro provides educational information. Confirm licensing, safety, tax, and regulatory requirements through current official sources and qualified professionals.