[Federal Register: February 22, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 35)]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 393
[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0271]
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Saddle-Mount
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)
by eliminating the requirement for operational brakes on the last
saddle-mounted truck or tractor in a triple saddle-mount combination,
except when a full mount is present. This is in response to a petition
for rulemaking from the Automobile Carriers Conference (ACC) of the
American Trucking Associations. Currently, the FMCSRs require
operational brakes on any wheel of a saddle-mounted vehicle that is in
contact with the roadway. ACC contends that this requirement degrades
the braking performance of these combinations because the lightly
loaded axle of the last vehicle tends to lock up under heavy braking,
and submitted test results supporting this position.
DATES: Send your comments on or before April 25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket ID Number
FMCSA-2010-0271 by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday except Federal holidays.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian J. Routhier, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 202-366-1225, or firstname.lastname@example.org, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Table of Contents for Preamble
Public Participation and Request for Comments
- Submitting Comments
- Viewing Comments and Documents
- Privacy Act
- Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
- Agency Analysis
- Discussion of Proposed Rule
- Regulatory Analyses
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
FMCSA encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will
be posted without change to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you provide.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (FMCSA-2010-0271), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding
To submit your comment online, go to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop-down menu, select
``Proposed Rules,'' insert ``FMCSA 2010-0271'' in the ``Keyword'' box,
and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Submit a
Comment'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble,
available in the docket, go to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov and click on
the ``Read Comments'' box in the upper right-hand side of the screen.
Then, in the ``Keyword'' box, insert ``FMCSA-2010-0271'' and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions''
column. Finally, in the ``Title'' column, click on the document you
would like to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal
C. Privacy Act
Anyone may search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19476).
II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is based on the authority
of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 provides that ``The Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe requirements for--(1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours
of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor
private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation'' [49
The braking amendments proposed deal directly with the ``safety of
operation and equipment of * * * a motor carrier'' [49 U.S.C.
31502(b)(1)] and ``standards of equipment of * * * a motor private
carrier'' [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(2)]. The proposal, adoption, and
enforcement of such rules were authorized by the Motor Carrier Act of
1935. This proposal rests squarely on that authority.
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (the 1984 Act) provides
concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle
equipment. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to ``prescribe
regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall
prescribe minimum safety standards for commercial motor vehicles.''
Although this authority is very broad, the Act also includes specific
requirements: ``At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that--(1)
commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and
operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of
commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the
vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial
motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles
safely * * *; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does
not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the
operators'' [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)].
This proposal is based on the authority of the 1984 Act and
addresses the specific mandates of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1). Neither Sec.
31136(a)(2), which deals almost entirely with the operational demands
placed on drivers, nor Sec. 31136(a)(3), which addresses driver
physical qualification standards, is covered by this rulemaking.
Section 31136(a)(4) deals with the effect of driving on driver health,
a subject this proposal addresses indirectly: brake lockup on saddle-
mount combinations, which the NPRM is intended to prevent, might under
some circumstances cause the driver to lose control of the commercial
Before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must also consider their
``costs and benefits'' [49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)]. Those
factors are discussed in the RegulatoryAnalyses section of this
ACC of the American Trucking Associations represents motor carriers
that transport motor vehicles ranging from automobiles to Class 8
trucks. ACC states that its members transport more than 96 percent of
all trucks moved by the saddle-mount method.
On January 16, 2007, ACC submitted a petition for rulemaking
requesting that the requirements for operational brakes on the last
saddle-mounted truck (the fourth truck) in a triple saddle-mount
combination be eliminated. ACC contends that this requirement actually
degrades the braking performance of these combinations because the
lightly loaded axle of the last vehicle tends to lock up under heavy
braking, potentially increasing stopping distance.
Stopping distances are specified in the vehicle brake performance
table at Sec. 393.52(d) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations,
which requires many combination vehicles, including triple saddle-
mounts, to be able to stop within 40 feet or less from an initial speed
of 20 mph. The FMCSRs do not specify
minimum stopping distances from higher speeds. They do, however,
specify performance requirements for the emergency brakes, after the
service braking system has failed. Under the Sec. 393.52(d) emergency
braking requirements, triple saddle-mounts must be able to stop within
90 feet or less from a speed of 20 mph. Further, Sec. 393.71(a)(3)
currently requires operational brakes on any wheel of a saddle-mounted
vehicle that is in contact with the highway.
Based on the results of braking tests performed on various triple
saddle-mount combinations, as described below, ACC requested that FMCSA
make two regulatory changes: (1) Amend Sec. 393.71(a)(3) to eliminate
the requirement for operational brakes on the last saddle-mounted truck
in a triple saddle-mount combination; and (2) amend Sec. 393.71(c)(4)
to require that a triple saddle-mount with any vehicle full-mounted on
it have effective brakes acting on those wheels in contact with the
ACC presented brake performance results from tests conducted by
Radlinski & Associates, Inc. [RAI] (now known as Link-Radlinski, Inc.)
in 1996 and 2002 in East Liberty, Ohio, on behalf of the National
Automobile Transporters Association (NATA), as well as supporting tests
RAI conducted for ATC Leasing Company (ATC) in 2003. RAI tested a total
of 24 triple saddle-mount combinations in the two tests conducted for
NATA and two additional combinations in the ATC test. Braking tests
were conducted on various saddle-mount combinations, with overall
lengths ranging from 53 to 96.9 feet, total weights ranging from 37,580
to 79,380 pounds, and with and without antilock braking systems (ABS)
on the lead unit. Some of the combinations tested exceeded 75 feet in
length--the Federal overall length limit then in effect for triple
saddle-mount combinations--since the RAI tests were conducted in part
to support increases in the overall length limits for saddle-mount
combinations. An overview of the tests and corresponding results from
RAI is presented below, and a copy of each test report is available in
the docket referenced at the beginning of this document.
1996 Test: ``Braking and Offtracking Tests on Longer Saddlemount
Driveaway Combinations'' \1\
\1\ Radlinski & Associates, Inc., Vehicle Systems Consultants
(August 1996). ``Braking and Offtracking Tests on Longer Saddlemount
Driveaway Combinations.'' Test conducted for the National Automobile
Stopping distance tests on five triple saddle-mount vehicle
combinations were conducted at speeds of 20, 40, and 55 mph. Three runs
were made at each speed, and the results were averaged. In the 20 mph
stops, the driver was instructed to apply full braking force, but at
higher speeds he was told to make a ``best effort,'' or modulated
application, to avoid wheel lockup and skidding. Combinations were
tested both with all brakes operational and with the brakes on the
rearmost axle disconnected.
All five vehicle combinations, both with and without the rearmost
axle brakes connected, met the Sec. 393.52(d) requirement that
combinations be able to stop within 40 feet or less from 20 mph.
Further, in all tests completed at 40 and 55 mph, stopping distance was
reduced when the rearmost axle brakes were disabled. An exception was
noted in which a vehicle stopped 1 foot shorter with all brakes
operational than with rearmost axle brakes disconnected (164 feet
versus 165 feet, respectively), but RAI did not consider the difference
(less than 1 percent) significant given the variability in the data.
2002 Test: ``Accident Avoidance Performance of More Productive
Saddlemount Driveaway Combinations'' \2\
\2\ Radlinski & Associates, Inc., Vehicle Systems Consultants
(January 2002). ``Accident Avoidance Performance of More Productive
Saddlemount Driveaway Combinations.''
Stopping distance tests on 19 triple saddle-mount vehicle
combinations were conducted from a speed of 20 mph, with a reported
average of two or three test runs per combination vehicle. In addition,
emergency brake tests were performed that require combination vehicles
to be able to stop from 20 mph within 90 feet or less. Three types of
failures were introduced: front brake circuit failure in the towing
vehicle, rear brake circuit failure in the towing vehicle, and a failed
towing line (i.e., the brakes on the towed unit were not operational).
All 19 triple saddle-mount combinations were tested with the
rearmost axle brakes connected, and 12 were tested with the rearmost
axle brakes disabled. In the latter group, all of the units met the
Sec. 393.52(d) stopping distance requirement of a maximum of 40 feet
from 20 mph. Five units were then tested for stopping distances from
both 40 and 55 mph. In all but one case, stopping distance was reduced
significantly with the brakes on the rearmost unit disabled. The
exception involved a 4 percent increase in stopping distance with the
brakes on the last axle disconnected--a difference RAI did not consider
significant given the variability in the data.
In the emergency braking tests, 12 combinations were tested in each
of two failure scenarios: failed front brakes and failed rear brakes.
Two of the units were also tested with a third failure mode of a failed
towing control line. All of the vehicles were able to stop within much
shorter distances than the 90-foot maximum specified in Sec.
2003 Test: ``Braking Performance of Saddlemount Driveaway
\3\ Radlinski & Associates, Inc. Vehicle Systems Consultants
(May 2003). ``Braking Performance of Saddlemount Driveaway
Combinations.'' Test conducted for ATC Leasing Company.
Stopping distance tests were conducted on one triple saddle-mount
combination vehicle from 20, 40, and 55 mph.\4\ Three runs were made at
each speed, and the results were averaged. In the 20 mph stops, the
driver was instructed to apply full braking force, but at the higher
speeds he was directed to make a ``best effort,'' or modulated
application, to avoid wheel lockup and skidding. The combination was
tested with all brakes operational, and also with the brakes on the
rearmost axle in the combination disconnected.
\4\ The 2003 test also included a double saddle-mount
The triple saddle-mount combination, both with and without the
rearmost unit braked, was able to stop shorter than the 20 mph service
brake stopping distance criterion of 40 feet or less in Sec.
393.52(d). Additionally, in all but one test conducted at 40 and 55
mph, stopping distance was reduced when the rearmost axle brakes were
IV. Agency Analysis
These test results demonstrate that triple saddle-mount driveaway
combinations (1) are able to meet the performance requirements of Sec.
393.52(d) at various combinations of vehicle weight and length with the
brakes disconnected on the rearmost towed units (fourth truck), and (2)
at higher speeds, perform better when there are no brakes on the
rearmost towed unit. Because the rearmost unit (fourth truck) axle
weight is less than half the axle weight on the other towed units,
connecting the brakes on the rearmost axle increases the likelihood of
premature wheel lockup and loss of control due to skidding, and limits
the maximum deceleration of the overall combination. Without brakes on
the rearmost unit, the driver can apply the brakes harder on the lead
unit and the forward towed units, achieving a higher deceleration.
Disconnecting the brakes
on the rearmost unit also reduces the total volume of air that must be
delivered to the towed vehicles, which in turn reduces brake
application time and stopping distance.
In addition, ACC's request to amend the braking requirements for
triple saddle-mount combinations is based on the same considerations
FMCSA cited in a final rule that permits motor carriers to disconnect
the service brakes on unladen converter dollies manufactured on or
after March 1, 1998.\5\ (70 FR 48008, Aug. 15, 2005). The axle weight
of an unladen dolly is so low that the wheels lock up under hard
braking. To ensure stability and control, which are especially critical
during emergency braking, it is better to disconnect the dolly's
brakes. Based on testing performed in 1990 at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Vehicle Research and Test Center, FMCSA
stated in its final rule:
\5\ FMCSA noted that with NHTSA's March 10, 1995, final rule on
ABS (60 FR 13216), the long-term need for this exception for unladen
converter dollies will diminish. An ABS-equipped converter dolly
will not have the stability and control problems observed with
unladen converter dollies not equipped with ABS. Therefore,
converter dollies manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, the
effective date of the NHTSA requirement for ABS on converter
dollies, are not covered by the exception.
Stability and control during braking is an important
consideration in determining braking requirements for commercial
motor vehicles. While stopping distances for a bobtail tractor
towing an unladen converter dolly could be improved in some
situations by requiring operable dolly brakes, they could be
significantly degraded in others. When consideration is given to the
possibility of the converter dolly swinging out as a result of wheel
lock up, the FMCSA believes the FMCSRs should be amended to include
an exception to the requirement for operable brakes on unladen
The last unit in a saddle-mount combination has higher axle weights
than a converter dolly but behaves in much the same way--i.e., the axle
in contact with the road locks up under heavy braking, reducing
controllability and increasing the stopping distance of the vehicle.
As noted previously, ACC requested FMCSA to address this brake-
performance issue by amending both Sec. Sec. 393.71(a)(3) and
393.71(c)(4). The latter provision requires that if a motor vehicle
towed by means of a double saddle-mount has any vehicle full-mounted on
it, the saddle-mounted vehicle must at all times while so loaded have
effective brakes acting on those wheels that are in contact with the
roadway. But Sec. 393.71(c)(4) does not currently apply to triple
saddle-mount combinations having a full-mounted vehicle. In this
situation, the weight on the rearmost axle will be increased, so the
brakes on the rearmost unit need to be connected to ensure adequate
braking capability--unlike the circumstances described earlier in which
the lightly loaded rear axle tends to skid and lose control due to
premature wheel lockup.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Given the potential for increased brake performance efficiencies
demonstrated in the test results submitted by ACC, FMCSA agrees that
eliminating the requirement for operational brakes on the last (or
fourth) saddle-mounted truck or tractor in a triple saddle-mount
combination would likely produce safety benefits. We also agree that
when one or more vehicles are full-mounted on a triple saddle-mount
combination, the FMCSRs should continue to require operative brakes on
all wheels in contact with the roadway.
As ACC requested, this proposed rule would amend Sec. 393.71(a)(3)
to except the last truck or tractor in a triple saddle-mount
configuration from the requirement to have brakes acting on all wheels
in contact with the roadway. Further, the proposal would apply to any
truck tractor being towed as the last truck in a triple saddle-mount
configuration, regardless of whether it is equipped with ABS (as
required by Sec. 393.55(c) for truck tractors manufactured on or after
March 1, 1997). Although Sec. 393.55(c) excepts truck tractors engaged
in driveaway-towaway operations from the requirement to have ABS, the
exception is moot for truck tractors built on or after March 1, 1997.
In saddle-mount towing configurations, these truck tractors have only
an air line connection between each vehicle, so no power is available
to operate the antilock sensors and control modules in the towed
vehicles. The Agency recommends, therefore, that the rearmost axle
brakes in a triple saddle-mount configuration be disconnected even if
equipped with ABS.
This proposal also would broaden the applicability of Sec.
393.71(c)(4) to include motor vehicles towed by means of a triple
saddle-mount configuration. Under the proposed regulation, if a motor
vehicle towed by means of either a double or triple saddle-mount has
any vehicle full-mounted on it, the saddle-mounted vehicle would be
required at all times to have effective brakes acting on those wheels
in contact with the roadway.
In addition, the proposed rule would revise Sec. 393.42 to read,
``Any combination of motor vehicles with one or two saddle-mounts.''
This effectively excepts triple saddle-mount combinations in driveaway-
towaway operations from the requirement to have brakes acting on all
wheels. These proposed changes are consistent with the Agency's mission
of increasing highway safety.
VI. Regulatory Analyses
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Agency does not believe
implementing this proposed rule would create new costs or cause an
adverse economic impact on the industry or the public. Therefore, a
full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.
FMCSA anticipates that this rule could result in several benefits,
chief among them the increased safety performance of triple saddle-
mount combination CMVs. By improving the braking performance of these
CMVs, the proposed rule could reduce the number of crashes in which
they are involved. This improved braking ability would also increase
the mechanical integrity of these CMVs, providing an ancillary safety
Tests conducted by Radlinski & Associates, Inc. (now known as Link-
Radlinski, Inc.) in 1996, 2002, and 2003, discussed in the Background
section of this document, support the argument that disconnecting the
rearmost axle brakes of triple saddle-mount combination CMVs improves
their braking performance. FMCSA does not have quantifiable data,
however, that would allow for an estimation of the number of CMV
crashes this change in practice would prevent, and cannot quantify this
This proposed rule would also reduce regulatory burden on motor
carriers by eliminating the requirement to connect the rearmost axle
brakes on triple saddle-mount CMVs. As with any proposed elimination of
an existing regulation, reducing regulatory burden on motor carriers
has the potential to lower associated compliance costs. These cost
savings are, however, likely to be modest because the proposed rule
simply amends a practice that is not particularly laborious or time-
In addition, FMCSA does not expect that this proposed rule would
impose costs upon affected motor carriers, because the elimination of
the current requirement would not require motor carriers to purchase
new equipment, parts, or accessories or to modify or alter existing
equipment or vehicles.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
Federal agencies to determine whether proposed rules could have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Agency's economic assessment demonstrates that the proposed rule
will yield minor benefits while imposing no new costs. Consequently, I
certify that this proposed action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rulemaking does not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et
seq.), that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $140.8
million (which is the value of $100 million in 2009 after adjusting for
inflation) or more in any 1 year.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
FMCSA analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. We determined that this rulemaking does not pose an
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This rulemaking does not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
A rulemaking has implications for Federalism under Executive Order
13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or
local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a
substantial direct cost of compliance on them. FMCSA analyzed this
proposed action in accordance with Executive Order 13132. The proposal
would not have a substantial direct effect on States, nor would it
limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document
preempts any State law or regulation.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this action.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that FMCSA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We determined that no new
information collection requirements are associated with this proposed
National Environmental Policy Act
FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1, issued
March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this proposed action has the potential
to produce a very small benefit to the environment if any reduction in
crashes is realized. Therefore, this NPRM is categorically excluded
from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment
or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1, paragraph
6(bb) of Appendix 2. The Categorical Exclusion under paragraph 6(bb)
relates to regulations concerning vehicle operation safety standards
that would apply to how these vehicles are operated. The Categorical
Exclusion determination is available for inspection or copying in the
Regulations.gov Web site listed under ADDRESSES.
We also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended
(CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity
requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that Executive Order because it is not
economically significant and is not likely to have an adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393
Highways and roads, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle equipment, Motor
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, subchapter B, chapter III, as follows:
PART 393 [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31136, 31151, and 31502; Sec. 1041(b)
of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.73.
2. Amend Sec. 393.42 by revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to read as
Sec. 393.42 Brakes required on all wheels.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Any combination of motor vehicles utilizing one or two saddle-
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 393.71 by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (c)(4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 393.71 Coupling Devices and towing methods, driveaway-towaway
(a) * * *
(3) When motor vehicles are towed by means of triple saddle-mounts,
all but the final towed vehicle must have brakes acting on all wheels
in contact with the roadway.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) If a motor vehicle towed by means of a double or triple saddle-
mount has any vehicle full-mounted on it, such saddle-mounted vehicle
must at all times while so loaded have effective brakes acting on all
wheels in contact with the roadway.
* * * * *
Issued on: February 11, 2011.
Anne S. Ferro,
[FR Doc. 2011-3911 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P