Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9717 

drums, and corrugated and solid fiberboard 

boxes). 

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this clause, the Contractor shall affix 

passive RFID tags, at the case- and palletizedunit-load packaging levels, for shipments of 

items that— 

(i) Are in any of the following classes of 

supply, as defined in DoD 4140.1–R, DoD 

Supply Chain Materiel Management 

Regulation, AP1.1.11: 

(A) Subclass of Class I—Packaged 

operational rations. 

(B) Class II—Clothing, individual 

equipment, tentage, organizational tool kits, 

hand tools, and administrative and 

housekeeping supplies and equipment. 

(C) Class IIIP—Packaged petroleum, 

lubricants, oils, preservatives, chemicals, and 

additives. 

(D) Class IV—Construction and barrier 

materials. 

(E) Class VI—Personal demand items (nonmilitary sales items). 

(F) Subclass of Class VIII—Medical 

materials including pharmaceuticals, 

(excluding biologicals, and reagents— 

suppliers should limit the mixing of 

excluded and non-excluded materials). 

(G) Class IX—Repair parts and components 

including kits, assemblies and subassemblies, 

reparable and consumable items required for 

maintenance support of all equipment, 

excluding medical-peculiar repair parts; and 

(ii) Are being shipped to one of the 

locations listed at http://www.acq.osd.mil/ 

log/rfid/or to— 

(A) A location outside the contiguous 

United States when the shipment has been 

assigned Transportation Priority 1 or to— 

(B) The following location(s) deemed 

necessary by the requiring activity: 

Contract line, 

subline, or 

exhibit line 

item number 

Location name City State DoDAAC 

(2) The following are excluded from the 

requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this 

clause: 

(i) Shipments of bulk commodities. 

(ii) Shipments to locations other than 

Defense Distribution Depots when the 

contract includes the clause at FAR 52.213– 

1, Fast Payment Procedures. 

(c) The Contractor shall— 

(1) Ensure that the data encoded on each 

passive RFID tag are globally unique (i.e., the 

tag ID is never repeated across two or more 

RFID tags) and conforms to the requirements 

in paragraph (d) of this clause; 

(2) Use passive tags that are readable; and 

(3) Ensure that the passive tag is affixed at 

the appropriate location on the specific level 

of packaging, in accordance with MIL–STD– 

129 (Section 4.9.2) tag placement 

specifications. 

(d) Data syntax and standards. The 

Contractor shall encode an approved RFID 

tag using the instructions provided in the 

EPCTM Tag Data Standards in effect at the 

time of contract award. The EPCTM Tag Data 

Standards are available at http:// 

www.epcglobalinc.org/standards/. 

(1) If the Contractor is an EPCglobalTM

subscriber and possesses a unique EPCTM

company prefix, the Contractor may use any 

of the identifiers and encoding instructions 

described in the most recent EPCTM Tag Data 

Standards document to encode tags. 

(2) If the Contractor chooses to employ the 

DoD identifier, the Contractor shall use its 

previously assigned Commercial and 

Government Entity (CAGE) code and shall 

encode the tags in accordance with the tag 

identifier details located at http:// 

www.acq.osd.mil/log/rfid/tag_data.htm. If 

the Contractor uses a third-party packaging 

house to encode its tags, the CAGE code of 

the third-party packaging house is 

acceptable. 

(3) Regardless of the selected encoding 

scheme, the Contractor with which the 

Department holds the contract is responsible 

for ensuring that the tag ID encoded on each 

passive RFID tag is globally unique, per the 

requirements in paragraph (c)(1). 

(e) Advance shipment notice. The 

Contractor shall use Wide Area Workflow 

(WAWF), as prescribed in DFARS 252.232– 

7003, Electronic Submission of Payment 

Requests, to electronically submit advance 

shipment notice(s) with the RFID tag ID(s) 

(specified in paragraph (d) of this clause) in 

advance of the shipment in accordance with 

the procedures at https://wawf.eb.mil/. 

(End of clause) 

[FR Doc. 2011–3759 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

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: 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 saddlemounted 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:// 

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. 

Fax: 202–493–2251. 

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 submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Brian J. Routhier, Vehicle and Roadside 

Operations Division, Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration, 202–366– 

1225, or brian.routhier@dot.gov, 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

9718 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking 

III. Background 

IV. Agency Analysis 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

VI. 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:// 

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 your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go 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 81⁄2 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 

envelope. 

FMCSA will consider all comments 

and material received during the 

comment period and may change this 

proposed rule based on your comments. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble, 

available in the docket, go 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 

holidays. 

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 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 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 § 31136(a)(2), 

which deals almost entirely with the 

operational demands placed on drivers, 

nor § 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 motor vehicle. 

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 proposal. 

III. Background 

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 

§ 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9719 

1Radlinski & Associates, Inc., Vehicle Systems 

Consultants (August 1996). ‘‘Braking and 

Offtracking Tests on Longer Saddlemount 

Driveaway Combinations.’’ Test conducted for the 

National Automobile Transporters Association. 

2Radlinski & Associates, Inc., Vehicle Systems 

Consultants (January 2002). ‘‘Accident Avoidance 

Performance of More Productive Saddlemount 

Driveaway Combinations.’’ 

3Radlinski & Associates, Inc. Vehicle Systems 

Consultants (May 2003). ‘‘Braking Performance of 

Saddlemount Driveaway Combinations.’’ Test 

conducted for ATC Leasing Company. 

4The 2003 test also included a double saddlemount configuration. 

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 

§ 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, 

§ 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 saddlemount combinations, as described 

below, ACC requested that FMCSA 

make two regulatory changes: (1) 

Amend § 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 § 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 roadway. 

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 saddlemount 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

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 § 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

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 § 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 § 393.52(d). 

2003 Test: ‘‘Braking Performance of 

Saddlemount Driveaway 

Combinations’’ 3

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. 

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 § 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 disabled. 

IV. Agency Analysis 

These test results demonstrate that 

triple saddle-mount driveaway 

combinations (1) are able to meet the 

performance requirements of § 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

9720 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5FMCSA noted that with NHTSA’s March 10, 

1995, final rule on ABS (60 FR 13216), the longterm 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. 

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: 

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 converter dollies. 

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 brakeperformance issue by amending both 

§§ 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 fullmounted 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 § 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 saddlemount 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 § 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 

§ 393.55(c) for truck tractors 

manufactured on or after March 1, 

1997). Although § 393.55(c) excepts 

truck tractors engaged in driveawaytowaway 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 § 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 saddlemounted 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 § 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 benefit. 

Tests conducted by Radlinski & 

Associates, Inc. (now known as LinkRadlinski, 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 potential benefit. 

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 timeconsuming. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9721 

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 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 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 rule. 

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 

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. 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 vehicle 

safety. 

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 follows: 

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 § 393.42 by revising 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 393.42 Brakes required on all wheels. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Any combination of motor 

vehicles utilizing one or two saddlemounts. 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 393.71 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (c)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 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, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3911 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS