Operator Challenges FMCSA Autonomous Truck Warning-Device Waiver in Court

Operator mounts legal challenge to FMCSA’s autonomous truck warning-device waiver

An Illinois-based cargo van operator has asked a federal appeals court to review a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration waiver allowing Aurora Operations’ autonomous trucks to use cab-mounted warning beacons instead of placing reflective triangles or fusees around a stopped vehicle.

Kostas Giannoulias filed the petition Sept. 8 with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He argues that FMCSA’s July 9 order extending Aurora’s exemption was issued improperly and without the public notice required for a decision with broader implications for highway safety.

The waiver allows Aurora and other motor carriers operating Level 4 automated driving system-equipped commercial motor vehicles to use warning beacons mounted on the truck cab. Other carriers and developers can operate under the exemption if they notify FMCSA in writing that they intend to comply with its terms.

For professional drivers, the dispute centers on how a disabled or stopped driverless truck would warn approaching traffic. Existing federal rules generally require a commercial vehicle stopped on or near a roadway to deploy warning devices, including reflective triangles or fusees. Those requirements assume that a driver is available to leave the cab and position the devices.

A Level 4 automated vehicle is designed to perform the driving task within defined operating conditions without a human driver taking control. Aurora has argued that a cab-mounted warning system is more suitable for trucks operating without an occupant who can exit the vehicle.

FMCSA’s waiver covers the warning-device placement rules, the requirements governing steady-burning lamps and the specifications involving the type and number of warning devices. Under the arrangement, the truck’s beacons are intended to provide a visible warning while the vehicle is stopped.

Giannoulias says he regularly hauls interstate freight by commercial cargo van on the Dallas-Houston corridor, where Aurora has announced driverless operations, as well as on routes between Dallas and Oklahoma City. He contends that the waiver exposes him and other motorists to a specific roadside hazard because autonomous Class 8 trucks may operate without the warning triangles required of conventional trucks.

His petition asks the court to vacate the waiver and send the matter back to FMCSA. He also requested a stay of the order while the case is reviewed and asked the court to expedite the proceedings. The court is considering those requests and directed FMCSA to respond to the motion for a stay by Sept. 21.

One of Giannoulias’ central arguments is that FMCSA exceeded its authority by allowing Aurora’s commercial deployment to continue through successive waivers. He also argues that the agency’s process effectively creates a broader class of eligible operators through an email notification procedure rather than through a formal rulemaking or clearly defined exemption process.

The petition further claims that the waiver allows Aurora to gather safety data while using the exemption it hopes that data will justify. Giannoulias says that approach bypasses safeguards Congress established for pilot programs, including public participation, data collection, safety analysis and reporting.

He also alleges that FMCSA did not follow its own procedures for written requests and staff review, and that the agency granted the July extension before Aurora had submitted a complete term report on the earlier waiver. The petition challenges FMCSA’s conclusion that the alternative warning system provides an equivalent level of safety.

Aurora had been operating under a limited exemption before the July action. FMCSA accepted public comments in April while considering Aurora’s request for a five-year exemption. The existing waiver was scheduled to expire July 9, and the agency extended it by letter for 90 days, through Oct. 9.

Giannoulias maintains that FMCSA should have published notice of the extension in the Federal Register. The agency had not responded to requests for comment on why the extension was not published or on the petition for review.

Aurora has reported that its earlier use of cab-mounted beacons produced no crashes under the waiver’s terms. The company said the beacons were used on 34 commercial motor vehicles that traveled more than 500,000 miles between Oct. 10 and Jan. 9. The system was activated for nearly 10 hours, and Aurora said it operated without faults, malfunctions or power problems.

FMCSA has separately sought public comment on Aurora’s application for a five-year exemption. The proposed exemption would apply to Aurora and other carriers operating Level 4-equipped trucks that notify the agency in writing before operating under the terms.

Aurora has said it planned to increase its fleet from 109 trucks to 200 by the end of 2026 and could expand to thousands of autonomous trucks over the following five years. A longer-term exemption would provide a more stable regulatory framework for that expansion, but the court challenge could affect how the agency handles the request.

The case puts a narrow roadside-safety question into the broader debate over how federal regulations should apply to trucks operating without a human driver. For motorists and truck drivers sharing the road with autonomous vehicles, the outcome could determine whether cab-mounted beacons remain an approved alternative to roadside warning devices and what level of public review is required before similar exemptions are granted.