[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56318-56322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23344]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0271]
RIN-2126-AB30


Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Saddle-Mount 
Braking Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) amends 
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to eliminate 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 (ATA), which stated 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.

DATES: The final rule is effective October 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents, 
including those referenced in this document, or to read comments 
received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time and insert 
FMCSA-2010-1271 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then click ``Search.'' You 
may also view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management 
Facility in Room W12-140, DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian J. Routhier, Vehicle and 
Roadside Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, 202-366-1225, or [email protected], 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 9 
a.m. to 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Privacy Act
II. Abbreviations
III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Public Comments
VI. Discussion of Final Rule
VII. Regulatory Analyses

I. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all 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 the 
U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Privacy Act system of records 
notice for DOT Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) in the Federal 
Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316) at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

II. Abbreviations

ABS antilock braking systems.
ACC Automobile Carriers Conference.
ATA American Trucking Associations.
ATC ATC Transportation LLC.
CMV commercial motor vehicle.
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation.
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
NATA National Automobile Transporters Association.
NPRM notice of proposed rulemaking.
RAI Link-Radlinski, Inc.

 III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This final rule is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act 
of 1935 and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984.
    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 
U.S.C. 31502(b)].
    The braking amendments in this rule 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

[[Page 56319]]

1935. This rule 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 (CMV) 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 rule is based on the authority of the 1984 Act, specifically 
the mandate to ensure that CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and 
operated safely (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)). By allowing the disconnection 
of brakes on the rearmost axle of vehicles towed in saddle-mount 
combinations, the rule will enhance the controllability of such 
combinations under hard braking and thus improve their operational 
safety. Section 31136(a)(2) requires FMCSA regulations to ensure that 
the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do not impair their 
ability to operate the vehicles safely. This provision is concerned 
primarily with potentially unreasonable demands placed on drivers by 
their employers (for example, schedules that encourage or require 
speeding); but to the extent subsection (a)(2) may refer to unsafe 
vehicles, the rule will make triple saddle-mount combinations safer for 
drivers to operate. Section 31136(a)(3) requires that the FMCSRs ensure 
that the physical condition of drivers is adequate to enable them to 
operate their vehicles safely. This rule does not deal with the 
physical condition of drivers. Finally, Sec.  31136(a)(4) requires the 
Agency's regulations to ensure that CMV operations do not have a 
deleterious effect on the physical condition of drivers. This 
requirement is related to subsection (a)(3) and is not directly 
addressed by this rule, although safer vehicles are obviously better 
for CMV drivers and all others who use the public highways.
    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 Regulatory Analyses section of this 
proposal.

IV. Background

    ACC, which is part of ATA, represents motor carriers that transport 
motor vehicles ranging from automobiles to Class 8 trucks. Its members 
transport more than 96 percent of all trucks moved by the saddle-mount 
method. In January of 2007, ACC submitted a petition for rulemaking, 
contending that the use of operational brakes on the final truck or 
tractor in a triple saddle-mount combination 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, which deploy after the service braking system has 
failed. Under the emergency braking requirements in Sec.  393.52(d), 
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) requires operational 
brakes on any wheel of a triple saddle-mount combination that is in 
contact with the highway.

Testing

    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 extend to triple saddle-mounts the existing requirement that a 
double saddle-mount with any vehicle full-mounted on it have effective 
brakes acting on those wheels in contact with the roadway.
    In 1996 and 2002, ACC, then known as the National Automobile 
Transporters Association (NATA), sponsored brake performance tests 
conducted by Radlinski & Associates, Inc. (RAI) \1\ in East Liberty, 
Ohio. In support of its petition, ACC submitted these test results, as 
well as the results of supporting tests sponsored by ATC Leasing 
Company (ATC) \2\ 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 and without antilock braking systems 
(ABS) on the lead unit. An overview of the tests and corresponding 
results from RAI were presented in the NPRM, and a copy of each test 
report is available in the docket referenced at the beginning of this 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Radlinksi & Associates is now known as Link-Radlinksi, Inc.
    \2\ ATC Leasing Company is now known as ATC Transportation LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Test Results in the NPRM

    As discussed in the proposed rule, FMCSA agrees that these test 
results demonstrated 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. 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 \3\ (70 FR 48008, Aug. 15, 
2005). The axle weight of an unladen dolly is so low that the wheels 
lock up under hard braking. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FMCSA noted that with the National Highway Transportation 
Safety Administration's (NHTSA) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion of Public Comments

    FMCSA received comments on the NPRM from ACC, ATC, ATA, and RAI. 
All of the commenters support the

[[Page 56320]]

proposed elimination of the requirement for operational brakes on the 
last truck or tractor in a triple saddle-mount combination, except when 
a full mount is present. They are equally unanimous, however, in noting 
that the proposed amendment of Sec.  393.42(b)(2)(ii) would undermine 
the stated intent of the NPRM. Section 393.42(b)(2)(ii) currently 
exempts combinations utilizing one or two saddle-mounts from the 
requirement to have operational brakes on all wheels--but the proposed 
amendment of this provision would have effectively removed this 
exemption.

Exemption

    RAI noted that the proposed amendment of Section 393.42(b)(2)(ii) 
would have effectively removed the exemption described above. ATC 
observed that the practical effect of the NPRM would be ``to impose a 
significant regulatory requirement on the driveaway industry by 
imposing additional braking requirements on single and double saddle-
mount combinations.* * *'' ATC, ACC, and RAI point out that this 
regulatory change would defeat the NPRM's objective of improving the 
braking performance of saddle-mount combinations. ACC, ATA, and RAI 
recommended that Sec.  393.42(b)(2)(ii) be removed. ATC proposed 
instead that Sec.  393.42(b)(2) be revised using language that excepts 
the final towed vehicle in a triple saddle-mount combination from the 
requirement to have operative brakes on all wheels, while at the same 
time linking saddle-mounts implicitly to driveaway-towaway operations.
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA agrees with the commenters that the proposed amendment to 
Sec.  393.42(b)(2)(ii) would have introduced a new and unintended 
regulatory burden for single and double saddle-mount combinations. 
Under Sec.  393.42(b)(2), motor vehicles being towed in single or 
double saddle-mount combinations ``are not required to have operative 
brakes provided the combination of vehicles meets the requirements of 
Sec.  393.52.'' By removing this exemption, the proposed rule would 
have increased the cost of operating single and double saddle-mounts 
while diminishing their safety.
    ACC, ATC, and ATA are correct that the braking performance studies 
on triple saddle-mount combinations discussed in the NPRM would apply 
equally to single and double saddle-mount configurations. Under this 
final rule, the FMCSRs continue to exempt single and double saddle-
mount combinations from the requirement to have brakes on all wheels 
provided the combination meets the requirements of Sec.  393.52, except 
when a full mount is present. FMCSA made changes to the regulatory text 
to address these concerns.

Comments on the Summary in the NPRM

    ATC takes issue with a statement in the ``Summary'' section of the 
NPRM that the FMCSRs currently require operational brakes on any wheel 
of a saddle-mounted vehicle that is in contact with the roadway; that 
statement is inconsistent with Sec.  393.42(b)(2).
FMCSA Response
    ATC is correct in contesting the NPRM's statement that the FMCSRs 
currently require operational brakes on any wheel of a saddle-mounted 
vehicle in contact with the roadway. As discussed previously, Sec.  
393.42 currently exempts saddle-mounted vehicles, except triple saddle-
mounts, from this requirement provided the combination of vehicles 
meets the requirements of 49 CFR 393.52. For those cases in which the 
combination cannot meet the performance requirements under Sec.  
393.52, brakes would be required.

Full Mounts

    ATC, ACC, and ATA agree with the proposed amendments to Sec.  
393.71. RAI, however, advocates further amendment of Sec.  393.71(c)(4) 
to require that not only double and triple saddle-mount combinations, 
but also single saddle-mounts, have operational brakes on the towed 
vehicle(s) when a full mount is present.
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA agrees with RAI's suggestion to broaden the applicability of 
Sec.  393.71(c)(4) to include all saddle-mount configurations--single, 
double, and triple. The Agency amends this section accordingly.

VI. Discussion of the Final Rule

    This final rule amends Sec.  393.42(a) and (b) and Sec.  
393.71(a)(3) and (c)(4) of the FMCSRs to exempt the fourth truck in a 
triple saddle-mount combination of vehicles from the requirement to 
have operative brakes on all wheels (provided the vehicles meet the 
requirements of Sec.  393.52), except when a full mount is present. The 
basic exemption is provided in amended Sec.  393.71(a)(3), with 
additional amendments under Sec.  393.42(b)(2) and Sec.  393.71(c)(4).

Section 393.42

    In order to reduce confusion, the current exclusion language in 
paragraph (b)(2)(i) has been moved to paragraph (a). Additionally, new 
language has been added to paragraph (a) that requires brakes on all 
wheels of a fullmount, regardless of the number of vehicles in the 
configuration.
    This rule retains the broad exception at Sec.  393.42(b)(2), but 
now clarifies that it also applies to the last truck of triple saddle-
mount combinations. Additionally, paragraph (b)(2) now contains a 
cross-reference to the amended regulation for triple saddle-mounts in 
Sec.  393.71(a)(3).

Section 393.71

    The final rule amends Sec.  393.71(a)(3) to eliminate the 
requirement for operational brakes on the last saddle-mounted truck in 
a triple saddle-mount combination. In addition, as requested by RAI, 
the final rule also includes an amendment at Sec.  393.71(c)(4) that 
removes the qualifier ``double.'' The requirement thus applies not only 
to double saddle-mounts, but also to any saddle-mount combination. In 
addition, the Agency makes an editorial change to improve readability.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), 
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 rule will 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 rule could reduce the number of crashes in which they are 
involved. This improved braking ability will increase the mechanical 
integrity of these CMVs, providing a safety benefit.
    Tests conducted by RAI in 1996, 2002, and 2003 support the argument 
that disconnecting the rearmost axle brakes of triple saddle-mount

[[Page 56321]]

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 will prevent, and 
therefore cannot quantify this benefit.
    This rule will 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 elimination of an existing 
regulation, reducing regulatory burden on motor carriers has the 
potential to lower associated compliance costs. These cost savings are 
likely to be modest, however, because the rule simply amends a practice 
that is not particularly laborious or time-consuming.
    In addition, FMCSA does not expect that this rule will impose costs 
on affected motor carriers because the elimination of the current 
requirement will 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 rules could have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency's 
economic assessment demonstrates that this final rule will yield minor 
benefits while imposing no new costs. Consequently, I certify that this 
action will 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 $141.3 
million (which is the value of $100 million in 2010 after adjusting for 
inflation) or more in any 1 year.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This 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 action under Executive Order 13045, Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The 
Agency determined that this rulemaking does not pose an environmental 
risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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 
Property Rights.

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 
action in accordance with Executive Order 13132. The rule will not have 
a substantial direct effect on States, nor will 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. The Agency determined that no 
new information collection requirements are associated with this final 
rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    FMCSA analyzed this rule 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, published 
in the Federal Register on March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this action 
has the potential to produce a very small benefit to the environment if 
any reduction in crashes is realized. Therefore, this rule 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.
    FMCSA 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 
criteria pollutants.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. The Agency 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 
vehicle safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations, subchapter B, chapter III, as follows:

PART 393 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 393 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; Sec. 1041(b) of 
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.73.


0
2. Amend Sec.  393.42 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  393.42  Brakes required on all wheels.

    (a) Every commercial motor vehicle shall be equipped with brakes 
acting on all wheels. This requirement also applies to certain motor 
vehicles being towed in a driveaway-towaway operation, as follows:
    (1) Any motor vehicle towed by means of a tow-bar when another 
motor vehicle is full-mounted on the towed vehicle; and
    (2) Any saddlemount configuration with a fullmount.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Motor vehicles being towed in a driveaway-towaway operation 
(including the last truck of triple saddle-mount combinations (see 
Sec.  393.71(a)(3)) are not required to have operative

[[Page 56322]]

brakes provided the combination of vehicles meets the requirements of 
Sec.  393.52.
* * * * *
0
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 
operations.

    (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 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 all wheels in 
contact with the roadway.
* * * * *

    Issued on: September 8, 2011.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-23344 Filed 9-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P