|
[Federal Register: December 18, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 243)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 79050-79068]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18de00-33]
=======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 392 and 393 [FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-97-2289]
RIN 2126-AA27 Development of a North American Standard for Protection Against
Shifting and Falling Cargo AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The FMCSA proposes to revise the regulations concerning
protection against shifting and falling cargo for commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) engaged in interstate commerce. We would issue new
cargo securement standards based on the North American Cargo Securement
Standard Model Regulations, reflecting: The results of a multi-year
comprehensive research program to evaluate current U.S. and Canadian
cargo securement regulations; the motor carrier industry's best
practices; and recommendations presented during a series of public
meetings involving U.S. and Canadian industry experts, Federal, State
and Provincial enforcement officials, and other interested parties.
Generally, the proposed revision would require motor carriers to change
the way they use cargo securement devices to prevent certain articles
from shifting on or within, or falling from CMVs. In some instances,
the proposed changes could require motor carriers to increase the
number of tiedown devices used to secure certain types of cargoes. The
intent of this rulemaking is to reduce the number of accidents caused
by cargo shifting on or within, or falling from, CMVs operating in
interstate commerce, and to harmonize to the greatest extent
practicable U.S., Canadian, and Mexican cargo securement regulations. DATES: You must submit comments on or before March 19, 2001. ADDRESSES: You can mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department
of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You can also submit
your comments electronically at http://dms.dot.gov. We can view the
NPRM and all items in the docket at that same internet address. You
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this
document in your comment. You can examine and copy all comments in the
Docket Management System (DMS) from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you want to be notified
that we received your comments please include a self-addressed, stamped
envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgment page that appears
after submitting comments electronically. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Bus and
Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSV, (202) 366-1790; or Mr. Charles
E. Medalen, Office of the Chief Counsel, MC-CC, (202) 366-1354, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 27, 1993, the House of Representatives held a hearing
concerning the adequacy of Federal regulations on cargo securement, as
well as the enforcement of those regulations ("Truck Cargo Securement
Regulations and Enforcement, 1993: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight of the House of Representatives' Committee
on Public Works and Transportation," 103rd Cong., 1st Sess. 32 (1993))
. The report of the July 1993 hearing is included in the public docket.
The hearing was prompted by several cargo securement accidents that
occurred in New York between 1990 and 1993. During the hearing, the
Federal Highway Administrator stated that the Ontario Ministry of
Transportation had requested that the FHWA review a proposal prepared
on behalf of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators
(CCMTA)--a non-profit association of senior officials from Federal,
Provincial, and Territorial departments and agencies responsible for
the administration, regulation, and control of motor vehicle
transportation and highway safety--for a research program to evaluate
cargo securement regulations and industry practices. The Administrator
informed the subcommittee that the FHWA would participate in the
research effort and consider incorporating the results of the research
into the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). A cargo securement research working group was organized by the
CCMTA and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation to discuss the
research methodology with industry groups and Federal, State, and
Provincial governments in the United States and Canada. The working
group, which included representatives from the FHWA, Transport Canada
(the Federal department responsible for developing and enforcing the
regulatory aspects of motor vehicle and motor carrier safety in
Canada), the CCMTA, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA),
several States and Provinces, and U.S. and Canadian industry, held its
first meeting August 16-17, 1993. A report identifying the cargo
securement issues to be examined through the research program and
describing the selected research methodology was published by the
Ontario Ministry of Transportation in November of 1993. A copy of the
minutes of the first meeting and a copy of the report entitled "A
Proposal for Research to Provide a Technical Basis for a Revised
National Standard on Load Security for Heavy Trucks" are included in
the public docket. Discussion of the Research Project The North American Load Security Research Project was initiated to
develop an understanding of the mechanics of cargo securement on heavy
trucks. The research was intended to provide a sound technical basis
for development of the North American Cargo Securement Standard Model
Regulations. Tests were conducted to examine the fundamental issues of
anchor points, tiedowns, blocking and friction, and issues related to
securement of dressed lumber (representative of cargoes that are loaded
lengthwise on a vehicle and secured with transverse tiedowns), large
metal coils, concrete pipe, intermodal containers, and other
commodities. The research is documented in the following reports: 1. "Experimental Evaluation of Friction Coefficients of Typical
Loads and Trailer Decks Under Vertical Vibration, North American
Load Security Research Project, Report 2," Canadian Council of
Motor Transport Administrators, 1997. 2. "Slippage Tests with Anti-skid Mats, North American Load
Security Research
[[Page 79051]]
Project, Report 3," Canadian Council of Motor Transport
Administrators, 1997. 3. "Dressed Lumber Tiedown Tests, North American Load Security
Research Project, Report 4," Canadian Council of Motor Transport
Administrators, 1997. 4. "Effect of Cargo and Tiedown Characteristics on Equalization
of Tension in the Spans of Tiedowns, North American Load Security
Research Project, Report 5," Canadian Council of Motor Transport
Administrators, 1997. 5. "Effect of Binder Type and Chain Length on Tension in Chain
Tiedowns, North American Load Security Research Project, Report 6,"
Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 1997. 6. "riction Coefficients Between Typical Cargo and Truck
Decks, North American Load Security Research Project, Report 7,"
Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 1997. 7. "Load Capacity of Nailed Wood Blocking, North American Load
Security Research Project, Report 8," Canadian Council of Motor
Transport Administrators, 1997. 8. "Effect of Cargo Movement on Tension in Tiedowns, North
American Load Security Research Project, Report 9," Canadian
Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 1997. 9. "Evaluation of the Strength and Failure Modes of Heavy Truck
Cargo Anchor Points, North American Load Security Research Project,
Report 10," Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators,
1997. 10. "Tests on Methods of Securement for Thick Metal Plate,
North American Load Security Research Project, Report 11," Canadian
Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 1997. 11. "Tests on Methods of Securement of Large Boulders, North
American Load Security Research Project, Report 12," Canadian
Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 1997. 12. Bending Strength of Trailer Stakes, North American Load
Security Research Project, Report 13, Canadian Council of Motor
Transport Administrators, 1997. 13. "Effect of Tiedowns on Wood Blocks Used as Dunnage, North
American Load Security Research Project, Report 14," Canadian
Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 1997. 14. "Tests on Methods of Securement for Metal Coils, North
American Load Security Research Project, Report 15," Canadian
Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 1997. 15. "Tests on Methods of Securement for ISO Containers, North
American Load Security Research Project, Report 15," Canadian
Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 1997. 16. "Analysis of Heavy Truck Cargo Anchor Points, North
American Load Security Research Project, Report 16," Canadian
Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 1997. 17. "North American Load Security Research Project Summary
Report, North American Load Security Research Project, Report 18,"
Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 1997. 18. "Assessing a Securement Method for the Transportation of
Heavy Machinery Using a Combination of Highway Vehicles, North
American Load Security Research Project, Report 19," Canadian
Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 1997. A copy of each of the reports listed above is in the public docket.
Copies of these reports may be purchased from the CCMTA, 2323 St.
Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario K1G 4J8. The telephone number for
the CCMTA is 613-736-1003; the web site address is http://www.ccmta.ca. There were a number of important findings, conclusions, and
recommendations discussed by the researchers. The following is a
summary of three of the major concerns discussed by the authors and how
they apply to the transportation of a wide range of commodities. Anchor Points The researchers believe the results of their work indicate that
vehicles used to transport heavy articles, such as metal coils, should
be equipped with anchor points designed for the load. The anchor points
on CMVs should be provided with a load-rating based on the
manufacturer's analysis of the possible directions that the applied
forces will act on the anchor point. Tiedowns The researchers observed that tiedowns either resist applied
forces, or increase friction between the cargo and the vehicle deck.
The researchers believe that if more attention is focused on other
means of cargo securement (i.e., blocking and bracing, etc.) it may be
possible to improve current cargo securement methods without any change
to the tiedown requirements. The authors indicated that the current
requirement for aggregate working load limits may be adequate for
general commodities secured by transverse tiedowns, but other cases may
require a different tiedown capacity depending on the other securement
provided. Friction The researchers concluded that friction is the principal factor
that keeps most cargo from shifting, so its role should be formally
recognized. Trailer decks, and cargo handling equipment like skids used
during transportation, should be designed with high coefficients of
friction. Rubber mats appear to increase the coefficient of friction
beyond 0.5 for many combinations of cargo and deck, and the use of
these mats should be encouraged. However, friction should never be the
sole means of cargo securement. Use of Research Results As various portions of the research were completed, the results
were provided to the Standard Drafting Group which was responsible for
leading the effort at drafting the North American Model Regulations.
Almost all of the research was completed by late 1997, with a few
remaining items completed in 1998. The drafting group was responsible
for reviewing the draft research reports to determine how the
information could best be used to improve specific cargo securement
requirements in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Process for Development of the North American Model Regulations The Standard Drafting Group developed the outline for the model
regulations with most of the detailed performance criteria added as the
research reports were completed. Membership in the drafting group
included representatives from the FHWA, Transport Canada, CCMTA, the
Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Quebec Ministry of Transportation--
Ontario and Quebec conducted most of the research--and the CVSA. The
CVSA was included in the drafting group because it is an organization
of Federal, State, and Provincial government agencies and
representatives from private industry in the United States, Canada, and
Mexico dedicated to improvement of commercial vehicle safety. The
membership of the drafting group was limited because there was an
informal agreement among the interested parties that it would have been
impractical to draft a technical document with a larger number of
participants. The process used for further developing this outline for the model
regulations involved the North American Cargo Securement Harmonization
Committee, a group which reviewed major portions of this outline as it
was completed by the drafting group. Membership in the harmonization
group was open to all interested parties in the U.S., Canada, and
Mexico. This process was intended to ensure that all interested parties
had an opportunity to participate in the development of the model
regulations, and to identify and consider the concerns of the Federal,
State, and Provincial governments, carriers, shippers, industry groups,
and associations, as well as safety advocacy groups and the general
public. The harmonization group held public meetings at locations in
the United States and Canada, during which drafts
[[Page 79052]]
of the North American Cargo Securement Standard were presented for
review and comment. Representatives of the CCMTA and the CVSA served as
co-chairpersons for the harmonization group and organized the public
meetings. The meetings held in the U.S. concerning the review of
substantive material that would be included in the model regulations
were announced by the FHWA in the Federal Register. There were nine
meetings held in the U.S. and Canada. Copies of the minutes from the
meetings, including lists of the agencies, organizations and companies
represented at the meetings, are in the public docket. For individuals and groups unable to attend the meetings, the CCMTA
posted information on the Internet. The Internet address is http://www.ab.org/ccmta/ccmta.html. Individuals and organizations with
Internet electronic mail addresses were provided with the opportunity
to have their names added to an electronic mailing list to receive
information on the development of the standard. After all interested parties were given the opportunity to comment
and their concerns had been considered, the final version of the North
American Cargo Securement Standard was published in May 1999 by the
CCMTA. A copy of the standard is in the public docket. Federal, State,
and Provincial governments throughout North America have now been
encouraged to adopt it through their respective rulemaking processes. Publication of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On October 17, 1996, the FHWA published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the development of the North
American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulations (61 FR 54142). The
agency requested comments on its consideration of a rulemaking to
overhaul the Federal cargo securement regulations based on the research
program described above and other published cargo-securement related
research, such as Southern Illinois University's March 1995 report
entitled ``Analysis of Rules and Regulations for Steel Coil Truck
Transport.'' A copy of this report is included in the public docket.
The agency also requested comments on the process that would be used to
develop the North American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulations. Discussion of Comments to the ANPRM We analyzed 10 comments that we received in response to the ANPRM.
The commenters were: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates);
the American Trucking Associations (ATA); the CCMTA; CVSA; the Illinois
Department of Transportation (IDOT); Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia (ICBC); the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Landstar
Gemini (Landstar); the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA);
and the Web Sling and Tiedown Association. Generally, the commenters agreed with the agency's plan to
participate in the research program to evaluate cargo securement
systems, and the approach the agency described for developing the North
American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulations. However, some of
the commenters expressed concerns about specific issues they believe
were not discussed adequately in the research and standards development
program described in the ANPRM. General Comments The Illinois Department of Transportation stated that the use of a
diverse ``drafting group'' to develop guidelines and performance
standards based upon current research appears to be a viable method of
regulatory development. They asked that the standards be based on sound
engineering principles. The output should be both user friendly and
enforceable. The CCMTA and CVSA indicated that they strongly support the
agency's decision to use the research results to overhaul the Federal
cargo securement regulations. Both organizations stated that they
believe a uniform, performance-based cargo securement standard will not
only improve highway safety, but also will provide equipment
manufacturers and carriers with increased flexibility to meet the
objectives of the standard. The Web Sling and Tiedown Association indicated that it supports
updating the current regulations to improve the safe transportation of
cargo. The association believes that allowing industry to participate
in the writing of standards will be beneficial both to the public and
to industry. Accident Data The ATA and TTMA indicated that they believe the agency should
review currently available accident data prior to making significant
changes to the cargo securement regulations. They suggested that the
agency should also conduct a study of accidents to learn from actual
experience where improper loading has either caused or contributed to
safety problems. Among their concerns were that the new rules not be
burdensome with details for every type of cargo to be secured. The TTMA pointed out that since accidents involving metal coils
seemed to be the impetus for this rule, a rule for coils should precede
this current NPRM. Then, if data supported a broader application of
securement rules, at that time rules for other types of cargo should be
implemented. Securement of Intermodal Containers Landstar believed the rules for securing intermodal cargo must be
unambiguous. They recommended using integral pins on chassis, avoiding
using cargo containers only secured by chains, straps, or other
binders, and using integral locking devices. Crashworthiness Standards for Cargo Securement Systems The Advocates requested that the agency develop standards that
would ensure that cargo remains inside or on the CMV during a collision
or rollover, and accommodate a variety of crash types, especially
rollovers and trailer detachment collisions. FMCSA Response to Comments The FMCSA believes the adoption of the North American Cargo
Securement Standard Model Regulations would ensure that the FMCSRs
concerning protection against shifting and falling cargo provide clear
and objective guidelines to both motor carriers and enforcement
officials on what is necessary to ensure safety and achieve compliance
with the rules. At the same time, the rulemaking would ensure that the
rules are technically sound. This rulemaking would close the gap
between the letter and the purpose of the regulations, so that the
intent of the rules is better expressed in the regulatory language. On the issue of harmonization of the cargo securement regulations,
the FMCSA agrees with the CCMTA and CVSA that there is a need to
establish more uniform requirements among all the jurisdictions in
North America and that the requirements should be based on engineering
data and test results. There is no readily apparent reason why the
cargo securement rules should vary significantly from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction in North America. There may be differences in the exact
wording, but there need not be substantial differences in what is
required. While the FMCSA agrees with commenters that the uniform regulations
being considered should be performance-based, the agency believes
[[Page 79053]]
the rules must contain sufficient detail to be easily understood, used,
and enforced. The rules should be performance-based to the greatest
extent practicable, but must be written in a manner that ensures that
motor carriers and enforcement officials will find the rules
meaningful. The agency believes that its proposed adoption of the North
American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulations would accomplish
this objective. With regard to comments about the need to study accident data, the
agency believes that it is always important to consider accident data
in determining whether to initiate a rulemaking. However, it is not
always necessary to have accident data to justify initiating a
rulemaking to improve the technical adequacy of safety regulations and
to expand the regulatory text to better explain what is required of
motor carriers. Currently available accident data indicates that shifting or
falling cargo is a contributing factor in less than one percent of the
accidents self-reported by motor carriers that typically complied with
the agency's former accident reporting requirements under 49 CFR part
394. Note: On February 2, 1993 (58 FR 6726), the FHWA published a
final rule amending the FMCSRs by removing part 394, Notification
and Reporting of Accidents. As a result of that rulemaking, motor
carriers are no longer required to file accident reports (Form MCS
50-T, Form MCS 50-B) with the agency or to make notification of
fatal accidents. The effective date for the final rule was March 4,
1993. Although the data suggests that the occurrence of cargo securement-
related accidents is low compared to some other contributing factors
for CMV accidents, the fact that these accidents continue to happen is
reason enough for the agency to consider taking action. The TTMA is correct that a major factor prompting Federal, State
and Provincial agencies to participate in the research and standard
development effort is accidents involving metal coils transported on
flat-bed or platform trailers. The FMCSA does not, however, believe
this rulemaking should be limited to the development of requirements
for the transportation of metal coils, while the adoption of rules
covering other commodities is postponed indefinitely until the agency
gathers accident statistics to support rulemaking for those
commodities. Metal coils result in some of the most horrific cargo
securement-related accidents, but they are not the only commodity
associated with accidents. Some effort is required not only to reduce
the occurrence of metal coils shifting on or within vehicles, but to
ensure proper securement of other commodities that can cause an
accident resulting in fatalities and serious injuries when they are not
properly secured. In response to the ATA's statement about the importance of
determining whether accidents are the result of rules that are
technically incorrect, or improper loading and securement practices,
the agency believes the current regulations have served their purpose
well. They have provided performance-based requirements that allow for
flexibility in the means for securing cargo. However, the research
reports listed above identify several issues for which the current
regulations do not include adequate guidance on proper securement. For
example, the current regulations do not specifically account for the
role friction plays in keeping certain loads in place. As a result,
some motor carriers focus almost exclusively on the tiedowns and not
enough on actions to increase the level of friction between cargo, the
load-carrying surfaces of the CMV, and the level of friction between
articles being transported. Another example is that the current regulations do not make a
distinction between direct and indirect tiedowns. Despite concerns that
some participants expressed in the public meetings there is a
fundamental difference between direct and indirect tiedowns. Note: A "direct tiedown" is one that is intended to provide
direct resistance to potential shifting of an article being
transported. A direct tiedown may be attached to an article and to
an anchor point on the CMV, or it may be attached to an anchor
point, go around or through an article, then be attached to another
anchor point. An "indirect tiedown" is one that is intended to
increase the pressure of an article or stack of articles on the CMV.
An indirect tiedown is attached to the vehicle, runs directly over
or through an article, then is attached to another anchor point on
the other side of the article, and is tightened. This difference should not be overlooked when determining the
number of tiedowns needed for heavy loads such as metal coils and
construction equipment. Under the current rules, motor carriers could
secure loads in a manner that complies with the safety regulations, but
would provide a relatively small safety factor. If the motor carrier
overestimated the strength of its securement system by a slight amount,
there would be an increased likelihood that the load would shift or
fall from the vehicle. By taking into account the differences between
direct and indirect tiedowns, the rules would increase the safety
factor and further reduce the likelihood of a cargo securement-related
accident. The proposal would make the regulations easier to understand, use,
and enforce. Through an improved understanding of what is necessary to
prevent cargo from shifting on or within a CMV, or falling from a
vehicle, motor carriers that experience these types of accidents may
learn effective methods to prevent future occurrences. Regulations that
provide greater detail in specifying what is required of motor carriers
would also help enforcement officials who must determine whether motor
carriers have satisfied the rules. In response to Landstar's comments about the securement of
intermodal containers, and a question raised by the TTMA on the same
issue, the FMCSA believes this rulemaking will establish appropriate
requirements for the transportation of intermodal cargo containers. The
agency has long recognized safety concerns about the transportation of
intermodal cargo containers on flatbed and lowboy trailers. On August 23, 1993, the FHWA published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking, Parts and Accessories for Safe Operation;
Intermodal Cargo containers. The ANPRM announced that the agency was
considering changes to the rules concerning securement of cargo
containers (58 FR 44485, FHWA Docket No. MC-93-24). At that time the
FHWA noted that there were substantial differences between the
regulatory requirements of the FMCSRs, several States' cargo securement
regulations, and industry practices. Some cargo containers are
transported on container chassis or other trailers with twist locks,
while others are transported on flatbed trailers or lowboy trailers and
secured with chains and straps. The former method complies with current
Federal regulations while the latter appears to be a common practice
that can be done safely and effectively provided certain guidelines are
followed. The proposed rule would include requirements for both methods
of transporting cargo containers. In a separate document to be published at a later date, the FMCSA
will terminate the rulemaking started on August 23, 1993. The agency
has considered all of the comments submitted in response to the 1993
ANPRM and shared this information with other members of the drafting
group responsible for writing the North American Cargo Securement
Standard Model Regulations. The agency does not believe it is necessary
to handle the [[Page 79054]] issue of intermodal cargo container securement separately from all
other cargo securement issues. Since the research included an
examination of the performance of tiedowns used to secure cargo
containers to vehicles other than container chassis, the agency
believes there is sufficient technical data to support the proposed
requirement. On the subject of crashworthiness standards for cargo securement
systems raised by Advocates, the FMCSA believes it would be
extraordinarily expensive, and probably impracticable, to require that
all cargo securement systems be capable of keeping loads in place
during moderate to severe collisions, rollover accidents, and trailer
detachments. The cargo securement regulations were never intended to
provide protection against shifting and falling cargo under such
circumstances, and there is no evidence that a significant number of
secondary injuries or fatalities are caused by the impact of cargo
thrown from a CMV as the result of an accident, as opposed to the
impact of the CMV itself with the roadway, nearby objects or other
vehicles. Crashworthiness standards would probably require many
vehicles to be withdrawn from service (in the absence of a grandfather
clause) and would certainly require others to be redesigned or
retrofitted with additional equipment. The agency believes that its
safety objectives can be accomplished at far lower cost by developing
regulations directed at collision avoidance (i.e., ensuring the
prevention of cargo movement which could contribute to the accident)
instead of imposing heavy regulatory burdens to manage the outcome of
the crash. Discussion of Proposal The FMCSA proposes these rules based upon the North American Cargo
Securement Standard Model Regulations. The agency would replace its
current cargo securement-related regulations under Sec. 392.9,
concerning driver inspection of cargo and cargo securement systems, and
Secs. 393.100 through 393.106 concerning cargo securement methods. The agency also proposes to amend Sec. 393.5 to adopt definitions
of: Aggregate working load limit; anchor point; bell pipe concrete;
blocking; bracing; direct tiedown; frame vehicle; friction mat; hook-
lift container; indirect tiedown; integral securement system; longwood;
rail vehicle; shortwood; sided vehicle; tiedown; tractor-pole trailer;
void filler; well; and working load limit. The agency would adopt these
definitions to ensure a common understanding of the terminology used in
the regulations. The definitions would be based on those in the model
regulations. The FMCSA notes that there are numerous other definitions in the
model regulations. However, the agency does not believe it is necessary
to adopt many of those definitions because the terms are already
defined in the FMCSRs, even though with slightly different wording. Inspection of Cargo and Securement Devices The FMCSA would revise Sec. 392.9 to propose that drivers be
required to inspect the cargo and the securement devices within the
first 50 miles (80.4 kilometers). Currently, Sec. 392.9 requires
inspection within the first 25 miles (40.2 kilometers). The FMCSA
believes research concerning the effects of vibration on cargo
securement devices and changes in the tension of indirect tiedowns,
suggests that conditions of the securement system which would require
the driver to make readjustments are more likely to occur after the
vehicle has been driven between 25 and 50 miles, rather than 0 to 25
miles. This is because traveling beyond 25 miles would subject the
vehicle to more vibration and forces over a longer period of time.
However, the agency believes the maximum distance the vehicle could be
operated safely prior to the inspection of the tiedowns should not
exceed 50 miles. All other requirements currently contained in
Sec. 392.9 would remain the same. The agency would rewrite the section
by putting it into plain language, but is not proposing any other
substantive changes. Applicability of the Proposed Rules The FMCSA proposes that Sec. 393.100 establish the applicability
for the cargo securement rules under subpart I of part 393. The
applicability of the proposed rule would be the same as the existing
rule, covering all cargo-carrying commercial motor vehicles (as defined
in 49 CFR 390.5) operated in interstate commerce. Performance Criteria The agency would establish new performance requirements concerning
the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical accelerations that cargo
securement systems must withstand to satisfy the proposed rules.
Acceleration is the rate at which the speed or velocity of an object
increases and deceleration is the rate at which the velocity decreases.
Accelerations are commonly reported as a proportion of the acceleration
due to gravity (g). This acceleration is 9.81 meters/second/second
(32.3 feet/second/second), which means that the velocity of an object
dropped from a high elevation increases by 9.81 meters/second (32.3
feet/second). The FMCSA would require that cargo securement systems be
capable of withstanding the following three forces, applied separately: (1) 0.8 g deceleration in the forward direction;
(2) 0.5 g deceleration in the rearward direction; and
(3) 0.5 g acceleration in a lateral direction. The values chosen are based on the researchers' analysis of
previous studies concerning commercial motor vehicle performance. The
analysis indicated that the highest deceleration likely for an empty or
lightly loaded vehicle with an antilock brake system, all brakes
properly adjusted, and warmed to provide optimal braking performance,
is in the range of 0.8-0.85 g. However, a typical loaded vehicle would
not be expected to achieve a deceleration greater than 0.6 g on a dry
road. The typical lateral acceleration while driving a curve or ramp at
the posted advisory speed is in the range 0.05-0.17 g. Loaded vehicles
with a high center of gravity roll over at a lateral acceleration above
0.35 g. Lightly loaded vehicles, or heavily loaded vehicles with a
lower center of gravity, may withstand lateral acceleration forces
greater than 0.50 g. The FMCSA believes the information presented by
the researchers supports the use of the decelerations listed above and
requests public comment on this issue. Safe and Proper Working Condition for Tiedowns The FMCSA would add new regulatory language requiring that all
vehicle structures, systems, parts, and components used to secure cargo
must be in proper working order. The agency would also prohibit the use
of devices that have visible damage, including but not limited to,
cracks, cuts, and deformation. Although these defects are not currently
discussed in the FMCSRs, it is understood that the use of damaged
tiedowns is a violation. The FMCSA would revise the rule to make it
clear that this is a violation. Standards for Tiedowns The current FMCSRs incorporate by reference manufacturing standards
for certain types of tiedowns including steel strapping, chain,
synthetic webbing, wire rope, and cordage. The FMCSA would update its
reference to the National Association of Chain Manufacturers' (NACM)
Welded Steel Chain Specifications, June 15, 1990,
[[Page 79055]]
edition to incorporate by reference the May 1, 1996 version. The agency
notes that some of the working load limit values in the 1996 version
differ slightly from those in the 1990 version. Also, the 1996 version
includes working load limits for a new grade of alloy chain, grade 100.
The FMCSA encourages commenters to compare the current table of working
load limits in Sec. 393.102 (b) with those in the proposed rule to
determine if the different values presented in the 1996 version of the
NACM publication would adversely affect their motor carrier operations
or make it more difficult to comply with the FMCSRs. Securement of Intermodal Containers and the Contents of Such Containers The FMCSA proposes commodity-specific requirements which would
apply to intermodal cargo containers. The agency is also proposing
specific rules for metal coils transported in intermodal cargo
containers. Although the agency does not believe the proposed rules
would create difficulties for motor carriers or shippers offering
loaded containers for transportation, the agency requests comments
concerning actions motor carriers believe they would have to take to
ensure compliance when transporting containers from foreign countries. For example, Sec. 392.9(a) requires drivers to assure themselves
that cargo is properly distributed and adequately secured before
operating a commercial motor vehicle. Section 392.9(b) requires drivers
to examine the cargo and load-securing devices during the trip and make
adjustments when necessary to maintain the security of the load.
Section 392.9(b) provides an exception for driver's of sealed
commercial motor vehicles who have been ordered not to open the vehicle
to inspect its cargo, or to drivers of vehicles loaded in a manner that
makes inspection of the cargo impracticable. The requirements of
Sec. 392.9 when combined with the explicit requirements concerning the
securement of the contents inside intermodal containers would make it
clear that each motor carrier and each driver must ensure that such
loads are properly secured. Unless containers are sealed and motor
carriers instructed not to open it for inspection of the cargo, the
proposed rules would require an inspection of the loads inside
containers. The FMCSA requests comments about motor carriers' ability
to inspect the contents of the intermodal containers they typically
transport. The FMCSA also requests comments on whether the cargo
securement methods typically used by shippers of intermodal containers
would comply with the proposed rules. Direct Versus Indirect Tiedowns The FMCSA would adopt the North American Cargo Securement Standard
Model Regulations provision concerning direct and indirect tiedowns.
The agency would continue to require that the aggregate working load
limit of tiedowns used to secure an article or group of articles
against movement must be at least one-half times the weight of the
article or group of articles. However, instead of determining the
aggregate working load limit by simply adding up the working load limit
of all the tiedowns being used, motor carriers would have to determine
whether the tiedown is a direct or indirect tiedown, and make
appropriate adjustments in the calculation. When direct tiedowns are
used, the aggregate working load limit would be the sum of: (1) One-half of the working load limit of each direct tiedown that
is connected between the motor vehicle and the article or cargo; and (2) The working load limit of each direct tiedown that is attached
to the vehicle, passes through or around the cargo, or is attached to
it, and again to the vehicle. When indirect tiedowns are used, the aggregate working load limit
of all indirect tiedowns would be the sum of the working load for each
tiedown which goes from one part of the vehicle, over an article, to
another part of the vehicle. The FMCSA notes that this approach differs significantly from the
current regulations, which do not distinguish between direct and
indirect tiedowns. The agency believes the proposed change would
require motor carriers to learn a new way of determining compliance
with tiedown provision of the cargo securement rules. However, the
change is not so great that it would be difficult to master the
proposed rules. The agency requests comments on this issue. Front End Structures on CMVs Although the model regulations do not include a provision
concerning front end structures (i.e., headerboards) used as part of a
cargo securement system, the FMCSA proposes to retain its current
front-end structure rules for CMVs. The FMCSA would, however, revise
its current rule (Sec. 393.106) by changing the applicability to cover
CMVs transporting cargo that is in contact with the front-end structure
of the vehicle. By contrast, the current rule establishes requirements
for, and requires that vehicles be equipped with, front-end structures
irrespective of whether the device is being used as part of a cargo
securement system. The current rules emphasize occupant protection rather than cargo
securement. It is expected that cargo that is not braced against a
front-end structure could shift forward, and the structure would
prevent the load from penetrating the driver's compartment. While this
concept may have merit for certain types of cargo, the FMCSA believes
the best way to ensure driver safety is to have tougher standards to
prevent the cargo from shifting forward. For example, if the vehicle is
transporting metal coils, once the load begins to move forward, it is
unlikely that a front-end structure would save the driver. The FMCSA
requests comments on whether the agency should include revised front-
end structure requirements in its cargo securement regulations. Specific Securement Requirements by Commodity Type The FMCSA would adopt detailed requirements for the securement of
the following commodities: Logs; dressed lumber; metal coils; paper
rolls; concrete pipe; intermodal containers; automobiles, light trucks
and vans; heavy vehicles, equipment and machinery; flattened or crushed
vehicles; roll-on/roll-off containers; and large boulders. During
public meetings concerning the development of the model regulations,
participants said that these commodities cause the most disagreement
between industry and enforcement agencies as to what is required for
proper securement. The FMCSA notes that each of these commodities must be properly
secured under the current performance-based cargo securement rules.
However, with the exception of metal coils, there is no detailed
guidance for motor carriers and enforcement officials. The agency
believes that accidents may be prevented through the establishment of
much more detailed rules that clearly spell out what is required to
achieve the desired level of safety. The rules would eliminate
confusion about what constitutes an acceptable cargo securement system. Provisions of the Model Regulations That Are Not Being Adopted Generally, the FMCSA would not adopt provisions of the model
regulations that are inconsistent with the agency's approach to
establishing performance-based rules. Two specific aspects of the model
rules that were considered inconsistent are: (1) Requirements for
specific types or grades of securement devices; and (2)
[[Page 79056]]
rules requiring tiedowns to be positioned at certain angles
irrespective of the practicability of doing so. Other Issues Under Consideration There are a number of issues that were discussed during the
development of the model regulations, and are included in the model
regulations but are not included in the proposed rules. The FMCSA did
not include proposed regulatory text concerning these issues because
the agency does not believe there is sufficient accident data or
information to adequately assess the costs and benefits at this time. Prohibition on the Use of Unmarked Tiedowns Among those issues, a prohibition on the use of unmarked tiedown
devices was considered by participants in the harmonization group
meetings. Many participants believe that it is important that all
tiedown devices have a working load limit rating marked on the device,
or some form of standardized marking which could be used to determine
the working load limit. The FMCSA agrees with this principle. The use of unmarked tiedowns would not be a cause for concern if
all such tiedowns of the same size and general appearance were the same
grade or strength. The FMCSA has no facts indicating that this is the
case. While many manufacturers have some form of marking, others may
choose, for whatever reason, not to mark their products. If unmarked
tiedowns of varying grades are readily available, motor carriers could
unknowingly violate the current rule and the proposed rule by failing
to have an adequate number of securement devices. The consequences for
a load such as metal coils could be fatal to other motorists. The risks of such an accident could be greatly minimized by
prohibiting motor carriers from using unmarked tiedowns. Before doing
so, the FMCSA would have to quantify the potential economic burden on
the motor carrier industry and those involved with the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of unmarked securement devices. Since the FMCSA
has no reliable information on the number of manufacturers,
distributors, and retailers of unmarked tiedowns, the quality or
strength of such devices, or the amount of these tiedowns currently in
use by motor carriers and in retailers' stock, it would be
inappropriate to propose a prohibition at this time. However, in view
of the potential safety hazards of motor carriers misidentifying
unmarked tiedowns, the FMCSA proposes that all unmarked welded steel
chain be considered to have a working load limit equal to that of grade
30 proof coil, and other types of unmarked tiedowns be considered to
have a working load limit equal to the lowest rating for that type in
the table of working load limits. The FMCSA specifically requests
comments on this issue. Mandatory Rating and Marking of Anchor Points Many of the participants in the harmonization group meetings
believe it is important that anchor points on semitrailers and trailers
be marked with a working load limit. Some believe that anchor points on
certain semitrailers and trailers should be required to meet minimum
strength requirements similar to Transport Canada's Canadian Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 905. While the FMCSA agrees with the
principle of rating and marking anchor points, the agency does not
believe it is appropriate to propose such requirements at this time.
Although the TTMA has established a recommended practice, ``RP 47-99,
Testing, Rating, and Labeling Platform and Van Trailers for Cargo
Securement Capability'' June 1, 1999, concerning test procedures and
general performance specifications for tiedown anchor points, front-end
structures, and sidewall structures, the FMCSA does not have any
information on the extent to which trailer manufacturers follow these
recommendations. As the FMCSA gathers information about the extent to
which manufacturers follow the recommended practices, the agency will
consider incorporating by reference the TTMA's recommended practice.
The agency would have to be certain that newly manufactured trailers
satisfied the guidelines in the recommended practice and that motor
carriers would not be prohibited from using suitable semitrailers and
trailers solely on the basis that the vehicle lacked a rating and
marking of the anchor points. Based on the anecdotal information
available to date, the vast majority of cargo-securement related
accidents do not involve problems with the anchor points. The majority
of these accidents involve an inadequate number of tiedown devices,
improper placement of the tiedowns, or other factors unrelated to the
design or performance capability of the anchor points. The agency requests comments on the marking and rating of anchor
points and information from enforcement officials and others who are
aware of accidents involving the failure of an anchor point. Development of Training Program The agencies and organizations participating in the North American
Cargo Securement Program have established a Training and Education
Committee responsible for developing a training package for motor
carriers and enforcement officials to ensure that the model regulations
now being considered for adoption throughout North America are
understood by all affected parties. The training package would cover
all of the requirements in the model regulations, and to some extent,
best practices for securing cargo. The training materials would be used
to help motor carriers better understand how to properly secure
different types of cargo and to ensure they are aware of what is
required. Enforcement officials could also use the training material to
ensure that they have an understanding of the new requirements. It is
anticipated that the training materials would be completed and
available to the public from the FMCSA before the effective date of the
final rule. The FMCSA would post publications on its website to assist
individuals with Internet access. The FMCSA would also consider making
copies of the training materials available through the U.S. Department
of Commerce's National Technical Information Service. Proposed Implementation Date Depending on the comments received in response to this notice of
proposed rulemaking, the FMCSA intends to publish a final rule in 2001
with an effective date as close as possible to July 1, 2001. This is
the date that jurisdictions involved in the development of model
regulations have agreed to use as a target for adoption of the new
rules. The FMCSA believes this time frame is appropriate and would
provide motor carriers and enforcement officials sufficient time to
prepare for the transition from the current requirements to rules
compatible with the model regulations. The agency requests comments on
this issue. Request for Comments The FMCSA is requesting comments on all aspects of the proposed
revision of the cargo securement regulations. Although the FMCSA's goal
is to adopt most of the provisions in the North American Cargo
Securement Standard Model Regulations, the agency does not intend to do
so without considering all public comments. If the comments received
indicate that certain portions of the proposal may need to be
reconsidered or modified, the agency will take appropriate action. The
agency [[Page 79057]] is concerned first and foremost with improving its cargo securement
regulations for the purpose of preventing accidents, injuries, and
fatalities. The FMCSA believes its safety objectives can be achieved while
harmonizing its cargo securement regulations with those of Canada and
Mexico. Commenters are encouraged to compare the North American Cargo
Securement Standard Model Regulations with the proposed regulatory
language, and the current regulations, and provide the agency with any
information they believe is relevant to this issue. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures The FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or within
the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and
procedures. Although the agency preliminarily determined at the ANPRM
stage that this rulemaking is significant under Department of
Transportation policies and procedures, the agency has held a number of
public meetings, completed a review of the comments submitted in
response to the ANPRM, and now believes the rulemaking is not DOT-
significant. The FMCSA received 10 comments to the public docket. While each
docket comment is important to the agency, this small number of
comments does not suggest a level of public interest that would warrant
a "significant" classification. Also, based on the information
currently available, the cost to the motor carrier industry for
compliance with the proposed rules, and the cost to the States for
adopting and enforcing the new requirements would be far less than the
$100,000,000 threshold used as one of the factors in determining the
significance of a rulemaking. This rule would require that motor carriers operating in interstate
commerce comply with improved cargo securement regulations based on the
following: (1) The results of a multi-year comprehensive research
program to evaluate current U.S. and Canadian cargo securement
regulations; (2) the motor carrier industry's best practices; and (3)
recommendations presented during a series of public meetings.
Generally, the proposed revision would require motor carriers to change
the way cargo securement devices are used to prevent certain articles
from shifting on or within, or falling from, CMVs, and how calculations
are done. In some instances, the proposed changes would require motor
carriers to increase the number of tiedown devices used to secure
certain types of cargoes. The agency believes the vast majority of motor carriers have a
sufficient supply of tiedown devices on board their vehicles at all
times. The proposal would allow motor carriers to continue using those
tiedowns provided the devices meet the applicable manufacturing
standards currently incorporated by reference in Sec. 393.102 (b). Most of the costs associated with this rulemaking are believed to
be associated with the training of drivers, motor carrier employees
responsible for loading CMVs, and enforcement officials to ensure that
they understand the requirements being considered. The FMCSA believes
the proposed rule concerning the distinction between direct and
indirect tiedowns under Sec. 393.106 is the only portion of the
rulemaking that differs significantly from the technical concepts in
the current rules and the best practices of the motor carrier industry,
such that training may be desirable for some individuals. It is more
likely than not that compliance with the remainder of the proposed
regulations could be achieved with much less training than may be
necessary to master Sec. 393.106. This is because the commodity-
specific rules have been drafted to enable the reader to use the rules
as step-by-step instructions for securing the commodity being
transported. With regard to costs to the States to train inspectors, the agency
is working with its State and Provincial partners to develop training
materials that could be used to minimize the costs for the enforcement
community and the motor carrier industry. For States participating in
the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), training costs are
considered an eligible expense. This means the States could receive
Federal funds to help cover the costs of training their roadside
inspectors. Therefore, based upon the information above, the agency
estimates that the economic impact associated with this rulemaking
action would be minimal and a full regulatory evaluation is not
necessary. Regulatory Flexibility Act In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FMCSA has considered the effects of this regulatory action on
small entities and determined that this rule would affect a substantial
number of small entities but would not have a significant impact on
them. Generally, the proposed revision would require motor carriers to
change the way cargo securement devices are used to prevent certain
articles from shifting on or within, or falling from CMVs. In some
instances, the proposed changes would require motor carriers to
increase the number of tiedown devices used to secure certain types of
cargoes. However, the rulemaking would not require motor carriers to
purchase new equipment. The FMCSA believes the vast majority of motor carriers have a
sufficient supply of tiedown devices on board their vehicles at all
times. The agency believes the number of tiedowns on board and the
strength of these devices are usually sufficient to secure whatever
types of loads the motor carrier is transporting, or intends to
transport. The cargo securement problems typically observed during
roadside inspections of flatbed trailers are ones in which motor
carriers do not use enough of the tiedowns that they already have on
board their vehicles. In the case of van type trailers, the problem is
that some motor carriers do not use any securement devices to prevent
loads from shifting. Therefore, the FMCSA believes that motor carriers
already have all the hardware they need to comply with the proposed
changes. The challenge for motor carriers would be to learn how to
properly use tiedown devices to further reduce the occurrence of cargo
securement-related accidents. Motor carriers are currently required to use tiedown devices that
meet applicable manufacturing standards incorporated by reference in
Sec. 393.102(b). Under the proposed rulemaking, the agency would
continue to require motor carriers to use only tiedown devices that
meet manufacturing standards currently specified Sec. 393.102(b). If
the tiedowns are in safe and proper condition, and meet the applicable
manufacturing standards, use of the devices would not be prohibited by
this rulemaking. As indicated above, additional costs could be associated with
training of motor carrier employees responsible for loading CMVs,
drivers, and enforcement officials to ensure that they understand the
requirements being considered. The FMCSA believes the proposed rule
concerning the distinction between direct and indirect tiedowns under
Sec. 393.106 is the only portion of the rulemaking that differs
significantly from the technical concepts in the current rules and the
best practices of the motor carrier industry, such that training may be
desirable for some [[Page 79058]] individuals. It is more likely than not that compliance with the
remainder of the proposed regulations could be achieved with much less
training than may be necessary to master Sec. 393.106. This is because
the commodity-specific rules have been drafted to enable the reader to
use the rules as step-by-step instructions for securing the commodity
being transported. For motor carriers that provide training for their drivers, the
costs would vary with the number of hours for training, and the number
of drivers being trained. At a minimum, training costs would include
wages for the drivers. The FMCSA reviewed earnings information from the
U.S. Department of Labor. The FMCSA used the "Occupational Outlook
Handbook," 2000-01 Edition, Bulletin 2520. The median hourly earnings
of drivers of light and heavy trucks were $11.67 in 1998. The middle 50
percent earned between $8.80 and $15.57 an hour. The lowest 10 percent
earned less than $6.51 and the highest 10 percent earned more than
$19.14 an hour. If a motor carrier provided one hour of training for 10 drivers in
the middle 50 percent, the cost would be $155.70 (10 drivers x $15.57
an hour per driver x 1 hour) in wages for the drivers to attend
training, plus the cost for the instructor and course materials. If the
training for the same group of drivers was expanded to four hours the
cost would be $622.80 (10 drivers x $15.57 an hour per driver x 4
hours) in wages for the drivers to attend training, plus the cost for
the instructor, and course materials. If the drivers earned $20 an
hour, the costs for the group of drivers to attend class for 4 hours
would be $800. These examples indicate how the costs per motor carrier
could vary greatly depending on the number of drivers to be trained,
and the amount of training required. The FMCSA cannot determine at this time the amount of training
drivers and other motor carrier employees may need. However, the agency
estimates that for a small entity employing 10 drivers the costs would
not exceed $1,000 ($800 for drivers' wages + $200 for the instructor
and course materials). The agency believes the economic impact on such
motor carriers of these training costs would be minimal. The agency
requests comments on this issue. Accordingly, the FMCSA has considered the economic impacts of the
requirements on small entities and certifies that this rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor
Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and
activities do not apply to this program. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not contain a collection of information
requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. National Environmental Policy Act The agency has analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
has determined under DOT Order 5610.1C (September 18, 1979) that this
action does not require any environmental assessment. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This rule 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 $100
million or more in any one 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) The FMCSA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property) This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and
it has been determined that this rulemaking does not have a substantial
direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that
would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this
document directly preempts any State law or regulation. This final rule
does not impose additional costs or burdens on the States. List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 392 Highway safety, Motor carriers. 49 CFR Part 393 Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FMCSA proposes to amend
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, as follows: PART 392--[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 392 is revised to read as
follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73. 2. Section 392.9 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 392.9 Inspection of cargo, cargo securement devices and systems. (a) General. A driver may not operate a commercial motor vehicle
and a motor carrier may not require or permit a driver to operate a
commercial motor vehicle unless-- (1) The commercial motor vehicle's cargo is properly distributed
and adequately secured as specified in Secs. 393.100 through 393.142 of
this subchapter. (2) The commercial motor vehicle's tailgate, tailboard, doors,
tarpaulins, spare tire and other equipment used in its operation, and
the means of fastening the commercial motor vehicle's cargo are
secured; and (3) The commercial motor vehicle's cargo or any other object does
not obscure the driver's view ahead or to the right or left sides,
interfere with the free movement of his/her arms or legs, prevent his/
her free and ready access to accessories required for emergencies, or
prevent the free and ready exit of any person from the commercial motor
vehicle's cab or driver's compartment. (b) Drivers of trucks and truck tractors. Except as provided in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the driver of a truck or truck
tractor must-- [[Page 79059]] (1) Assure himself/herself that the provisions of paragraph (a) of
this section have been complied with before he/she drives that
commercial motor vehicle; (2) Inspect the cargo and the devices used to secure the cargo
within the first 50 miles after beginning a trip and cause any
adjustments to be made to the cargo or load securement devices as
necessary, including adding more securement devices, to ensure that
cargo cannot shift on or within, or fall from the commercial motor
vehicle; and (3) Reexamine the commercial motor vehicle's cargo and its load
securement devices periodically during the course of transportation and
cause any adjustments to be made to the cargo or load securement
devices as necessary, including adding more securement devices, to
ensure that cargo cannot shift on or within, or fall from the
commercial motor vehicle. A periodic reexamination and any necessary
adjustments must be made-- (i) When the driver makes a change of his/her duty status; or
(ii) After the commercial motor vehicle has been driven for 3
hours; or
(iii) After the commercial motor vehicle has been driven for 150
miles, whichever occurs first.
(4) The rules in this paragraph (b) do not apply to the driver of a
sealed commercial motor vehicle who has been ordered not to open it to
inspect its cargo or to the driver of a commercial motor vehicle that
has been loaded in a manner that makes inspection of its cargo
impracticable. PART 393--[AMENDED] 3. Revise the authority citation for part 393 to read as follows: Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914,
1993 (1991); 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73. 4. Amend Sec. 393.5 to add the following definitions in
alphabetical order: Sec. 393.5 Definitions. * * * * *
Aggregate working load limit. The summation of the working load
limits or restraining capacity of all devices used to secure an article
on a vehicle.
* * * * *
Anchor point. Part of the structure, fitting or attachment on a
vehicle or cargo to which a tiedown is attached.
* * * * *
Bell pipe concrete. Pipe whose flanged end is of larger diameter
than its barrel. Blocking. A structure, device or another substantial article placed
against or around an article to prevent horizontal movement of the
article. Bracing. A structure, device, or another substantial article placed
against an article to prevent it from tipping, that may also prevent it
from shifting.
* * * * * Direct tiedown. A tiedown that is intended to provide direct
resistance to potential shift of an article.
* * * * * Frame vehicle. A vehicle with skeletal structure fitted with one or
more bunk units for transporting logs. A bunk unit consists of a U-
shaped front and rear bunks that together cradle logs. The bunks are
welded, gusseted or otherwise firmly fastened to the vehicle's main
beams, and are an integral part of the vehicle. Friction mat. A device placed between the deck of a vehicle and
cargo, or between articles of cargo, intended to provide greater
friction than exists naturally between these surfaces.
* * * * * g. The acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 ft/sec\2\ (9.823 m/
sec\2\).
* * * * * Hook-lift container. A specialized container, primarily used to
contain and transport materials in the waste, recycling, construction/
demolition and scrap industries, which is used in conjunction with
specialized vehicles, in which the container is loaded and unloaded
onto a tilt frame body by an articulating hook-arm.
* * * * * Indirect tiedown. A tiedown whose tension is intended to increase
the pressure of an article or stack of articles on the deck of the
vehicle. Integral securement system. A system on certain roll-on/roll-off
containers and hook-lift containers and their related transport
vehicles in which compatible front and rear hold down devices are mated
to provide securement of the complete vehicle and its cargo.
* * * * * Longwood. All logs that are not shortwood, i.e., are over 4.9 m (16
feet) long. Such logs are usually described as long logs or treelength.
* * * * * Rail vehicle. A vehicle whose skeletal structure is fitted with
stakes at the front and rear to contain logs loaded crosswise.
* * * * * Shortwood. All logs typically up to 4.9 m (16 feet) long. Such logs
are often described as cut-up logs, cut-to-length logs, bolts or
pulpwood. Shortwood may be loaded lengthwise or crosswise, though that
loaded crosswise is usually no more than 2.6 m (102 inches) long.
* * * * * Sided vehicle. A vehicle whose cargo compartment is enclosed on all
four sides by walls of sufficient strength to contain cargo, where the
walls may include latched openings for loading and unloading, and
includes vans, dump bodies, and a sided intermodal container carried by
a vehicle.
* * * * * Tiedown. A combination of securing devices which forms an assembly
that attaches cargo to, or restrains cargo on, a vehicle or trailer,
and is attached to anchor point(s). Tractor-pole trailer. A combination vehicle that carries logs
lengthwise so that they form the body of the vehicle. The logs are
supported by a bunk located on the rear of the tractor, and another
bunk on the skeletal trailer. The tractor bunk may rotate about a
vertical axis, and the trailer may have a fixed, scoping, or cabled
reach, or other mechanical freedom, to allow it to turn.
* * * * * Void filler. Material used to fill a void between articles of cargo
and the structure of the vehicle that has sufficient strength to
prevent movement of the articles of cargo.
* * * * * Well. The depression formed between two cylindrical articles when
they are laid with their eyes horizontal and parallel against each
other.
* * * * * Working load limit (WLL). The maximum load that may be applied to a
component of a cargo securement system during normal service, usually
assigned by the manufacturer of the component. 5. Subpart I of part 393 is revised to read as follows: Subpart I--Protection Against Shifting and Falling Cargo Sec. 393.100 Which types of commercial motor vehicles are subject to the
cargo securement standards of this subpart, and what general
requirements apply? 393.102 What are the minimum performance criteria for cargo
securement devices and systems? 393.104 What standards must cargo securement devices and systems
meet in order to satisfy the requirements of this subpart? 393.106 What are the general requirements for securing cargo
against shifting or falling? 393.108 How is the working load limit of a tiedown determined? 393.110 What else do I have to do to determine the minimum number
of tiedowns? [[Page 79060]] 393.112 What is the strength required for load binders and
associated hardware? 393.114 What is the minimum strength of an attachment point on a
vehicle? 393.116 What is the minimum strength for a winch or fastening
device? 393.118 Must a tiedown be adjustable? 393.120 What are the requirements for front end structures used as
part of a cargo securement system? Specific Securement Requirements by Commodity Type 393.122 What are the rules for securing logs? 393.124 What are the rules for securing dressed lumber or similar
building products? 393.126 What are the rules for securing metal coils? 393.128 What are the rules for securing paper rolls? 393.130 What are the rules for securing concrete pipe? 393.132 What are the rules for securing intermodal containers? 393.134 What are the rules for securing automobiles, light trucks
and vans? 393.136 What are the rules for securing heavy vehicles, equipment
and machinery? 393.138 What are the rules for securing flattened or crushed
vehicles? 393.140 What are the rules for securing roll-on/roll-off and hook
lift containers? 393.142 What are the rules for securing large boulders? Sec. 393.100 Which types of commercial motor vehicles are subject to
the cargo securement standards of this subpart, and what general
requirements apply? (a) Applicability. The rules in this subpart are applicable to
trucks, truck tractors, semitrailers, full trailers, and pole trailers. (b) Prevention against loss of load. Each commercial motor vehicle
must, when transporting cargo on public roads, be loaded and equipped,
and the cargo secured, in accordance with this subpart to prevent the
cargo from spilling or falling from the motor vehicle. (c) Prevention against shifting of load. Cargo must be contained or
secured in accordance with this subpart to prevent shifting upon or
within the vehicle. Sec. 393.102 What are the minimum performance criteria for cargo
securement devices and systems? (a) Performance criteria. Cargo securement devices and systems must
be capable of withstanding the following three forces, applied
separately: (1) 0.8 g deceleration in the forward direction;
(2) 0.5 g deceleration in the rearward direction; and
(3) 0.5 g acceleration in a lateral direction. (b) Performance criteria for devices to prevent vertical movement
of loads that are not contained within the structure of the vehicle.
Securement systems must provide a downward force equivalent to at least
20 percent of the weight of the cargo if the cargo is not fully
contained within the structure of the vehicle. (c) Prohibition on exceeding working load limits. Cargo securement
devices and systems must be designed, installed, and maintained to
ensure that the maximum forces acting on the devices or systems do not
exceed the working load limit for the devices under the conditions
listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. Sec. 393.104 What standards must cargo securement devices and systems
meet in order to satisfy the requirements of this subpart? (a) General. All devices and systems used to secure cargo to or
within a vehicle must be capable of meeting the performance
requirements of Sec. 393.102. (b) Prohibition on the use of damaged securement devices. All
vehicle structures, systems, parts, and components used to secure cargo
must be in proper working order when used to perform that function and
must not have any visible damage, including but not limited to, cracks,
cuts, and deformation. (c) Vehicle structures and anchor points. Vehicle structures,
floors, walls, decks, tiedown anchor points, headerboards, bulkheads,
stakes, posts and associated mounting pockets used to contain or secure
cargo must be strong enough to meet the performance criteria of
Sec. 393.102. (d) Tiedown assemblies. Tiedown assemblies (including chains, wire
rope, steel strapping, synthetic webbing, and cordage) and other
attachment or fastening devices used to secure cargo to, or in,
commercial motor vehicles must conform to the following applicable
standards:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An assembly component of . . . Must conform to . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Steel strapping \1\ \2\....... Standard Specification for
Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals,
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) D3953-91, 1991.\4\
(2) Chain......................... National Association of Chain
Manufacturers' Welded Steel Chain
Specifications, May 1, 1996.\4\
(3) Webbing....................... Web Sling and Tiedown Association's
Recommended Standard Specification
for Synthetic Webbing Tiedowns,
1991.\4\
(4) Wire rope \3\................. Wire Rope Technical Board's Wire
Rope Users Manual, 2nd rope
Edition, November 1985.\4\
(5) Cordage....................... Cordage Institute rope standard:
(i) PETRS-2, Polyester Fiber Rope, 3-
Strand and 8-Strand Constructions,
January 1993; \4\
(ii) PPRS-2, Polypropylene Fiber
Rope, 3-Strand and 8-Strand
Constructions, August 1992; \4\
(iii) CRS-1, Polyester/Polypropylene
Composite Rope Specifications, 3-
Strand and 8-Strand Standard
Construction, May 1979; \4\
(iv) NRS-1, Nylon Rope
Specifications, 3-Strand and 8-
Strand Standard Construction, May
1979; \4\ and
(v) C-1, Double Braided Nylon Rope
Specifications DBN, January
1984.\4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Steel strapping not marked by the manufacturer with a working load
limit will be considered to have a working load limit equal to one-
fourth of the breaking strength listed in ASTM D3953-91. \2\ Steel strapping 25.4 mm (1 inch) or wider must have at least two
pairs of crimps in each seal and, when an end-over-end lap joint is
formed, must be sealed with at least two seals. \3\ Wire rope which is not marked by the manufacturer with a working
load limit shall be considered to have a working load limit equal to
one-fourth of the nominal strength listed in the manual. \4\ See Sec. 393.7(b) for information on the incorporation by reference
and availability of this document. Sec. 393.106 What are the general requirements for securing cargo
against shifting or falling? (a) General. The rules in this section are applicable to the
transportation of all types of cargo, except commodities in bulk that
lack structure or fixed shape (e.g., liquids, gases, grain, liquid
concrete, sand, gravel, aggregates) and are transported in a tank,
hopper, box or similar device that forms part of the structure of a
commercial motor vehicle. The rules in this section apply to the cargo
types covered by the commodity-specific rules of Sec. 393.122 through
Sec. 393.142. The commodity-specific rules take precedence over the
general requirements of this section when
[[Page 79061]]
additional requirements are given for a commodity listed in those
sections. (b) Minimum strength of cargo securement devices and systems. The
aggregate working load limit of tiedowns used to secure an article or
group of articles against movement must be at least one-half times the
weight of the article or group of articles. (1) Direct tiedowns. The aggregate working load limit of all direct
tiedowns used to restrain an article or articles is the sum of: (i) One-half of the working load limit of each direct tiedown that
is connected between the motor vehicle and the article of cargo; and (ii) The working load limit of each direct tiedown that is attached
to the vehicle, passes through or around the cargo, or is attached to
it, and again attached to the vehicle. (2) Indirect tiedowns. The aggregate working load limit of all
indirect tiedowns used to restrain an article or articles is the sum of
the working load limit for each tiedown which goes from one part of the
vehicle, over an article, to another part of the vehicle. Sec. 393.108 How is the working load limit of a tiedown determined? (a) The working load limits of tiedowns may be determined by using
either the tiedown manufacturer's markings or by using the tables in
this section. The working load limits listed in the tables are to be
used when the tiedown material is not marked by the manufacturer with
the working load limit. Tiedown materials which are marked by the
manufacturer with working load limits that differ from the tables,
shall be considered to have a working load limit equal to the value for
which they are marked. (b) Synthetic cordage (e.g., nylon, polypropylene, polyester) which
is not marked or labeled to enable identification of its composition or
working load limit shall be considered to have a working load limit
equal to that for polypropylene fiber rope. (c) Welded steel chain which is not marked or labeled to enable
identification of its grade or working load limit shall be considered
to have a working load limit equal to that for grade 30 proof coil
chain. (d)(1) Wire rope which is not marked by the manufacturer with a
working load limit shall be considered to have a working load limit
equal to one-fourth of the nominal strength listed in the Wire Rope
Users Manual. (2) Wire which is not marked or labeled to enable identification of
its construction type shall be considered to have a working load limit
equal to that for 6 x 37, fiber core wire rope.
Tables to Sec. 393.108
[Working Load Limits (WLL)]
Chain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WLL in kg (pounds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size mm (inches) Grade 30 proof Grade 43 high Grade 70
coil test transport Grade 80 alloy Grade 100 alloy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 7 (\1/4\)............................................. 580 (1,300) 1,180 (2,600) 1,430 (3,150) 1,570 (3,500)
2. 8 (\5/16\)............................................ 860 (1,900) 1,770 (3,900) 2,130 (4,700) 2,000 (4,500) 2,600 (5,700)
3. 10 (\3/8\)............................................ 1,200 (2,650) 2,450 (5,400) 2,990 (6,600) 3,200 (7,100) 4,000 (8,800)
4. 11 (\7/16\)........................................... 1,680 (3,700) 3,270 (7,200) 3,970 (8,750)
5. 13 (\1/2\)............................................ 2,030 (4,500) 4,170 (9,200) 5,130 (11,300) 5,400 (12,000) 6,800 (15,000)
6. 16 (\5/8\)............................................ 3,130 (6,900) 5,910 (13,000) 7,170 (15,800) 8,200 (18,100) 10,300 (22,600)
Chain Mark Examples:
Example 1............................................ PC HT T
Example 2............................................ 3 4 7 8 10
Example 3............................................ 30 40 70 80 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synthetic Webbing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width mm (inches) WLL kg (pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
45 (1 \3/4\) 790 (1,750)
50 (2) 910 (2,000)
75 (3) 1,360 (3,000)
100 (4) 1,810 (4,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wire Rope (6 x 37, Fiber Core)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diameter mm (inches) WLL kg (pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 (\1/4\) 640 (1,400)
8 (\5/16\) 950 (2,100)
10 (\3/8\) 1,360 (3,000)
11 (\7/16\) 1,860 (4,100)
13 (\1/2\) 2,400 (5,300)
16 (\5/8\) 3,770 (8,300)
20 (\3/4\) 4,940 (10,900)
22 (\7/8\) 7,300 (16,100)
25 (1) 9,480 (20,900)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manila Rope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diameter mm (inches) WLL kg (pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 (\3/8\) 90 (205)
11 (\7/16\) 120 (265)
13 (\1/2\) 150 (315)
16 (\5/8\) 210 (465)
20 (\3/4\) 290 (640)
25 (1) 480 (1,050)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polypropylene Fiber Rope WLL (3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diameter mm (inches) WLL kg (pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 (\3/8\) 180 (400)
11 (\7/16\) 240 (525)
13 (\1/2\) 280 (625)
16 (\5/8\) 420 (925)
20 (\3/4\) 580 (1,275)
25 (1) 950 (2,100)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyester Fiber Rope WLL (3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diameter mm (inches) WLL kg (pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 (\3/8\) 250 (555)
11 (\7/16\) 340 (750)
13 (\1/2\) 440 (960)
16 (\5/8\) 680 (1,500)
20 (\3/4\) 850 (1,880)
25 (1) 1,500 (3,300)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nylon Rope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diameter mm (inches) WLL kg (pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 (\3/8\) 130 (278)
11 (\7/16\) 190 (410)
13 (\1/2\) 240 (525)
16 (\5/8\) 420 (935)
20 (\3/4\) 640 (1,420)
25 (1) 1,140 (2,520)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double Braided Nylon Rope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diameter mm (inches) WLL kg (pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 (\3/8\) 150 (336)
11 (\7/16\) 230 (502)
13 (\1/2\) 300 (655)
16 (\5/8\) 510 (1,130)
20 (\3/4\) 830 (1,840)
25 (1) 1,470 (3,250)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Strapping
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width x thickness mm (inches) WLL kg (pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 79062]]
31.7 x .74 (1\1/4\ x 0.029) 540 (1,190)
31.7 x .79 (1\1/4\ x 0.031) 540 (1,190)
31.7 x .89 (1\1/4\ x 0.035) 540 (1,190)
31.7 x 1.12 (1\1/4\ x 0.044) 770 (1,690)
31.7 x 1.27 (1\1/4\ x 0.05) 770 (1,690)
31.7 x 1.5 (1\1/4\ x 0.057) 870 (1,925)
50.8 x 1.12 (2 x 0.044) 1,200 (2,650)
50.8 x 1.27 (2 x 0.05) 1,200 (2,650)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 393.110 What else do I have to do to determine the minimum number
of tiedowns? (a) In addition to the requirements of Sec. 393.106, the minimum
number of tiedowns required to secure an article or group of articles
against movement depends on whether indirect or direct tiedowns are
used and the length of the article(s) being secured. (b) When an article is not blocked or positioned to prevent
movement in the forward direction by a headerboard, bulkhead, other
cargo that is positioned to prevent movement, or other appropriate
blocking devices, it must be secured by at least: (1) One tiedown for articles 5 feet (1.52 meters) or less in
length, and 1,100 pounds (500 kg) or less in weight; (2) Two tiedowns if the article is:
(i) 5 feet (1.52 meters) or less in length and more than 1,100
pounds (500 kg) in weight; or
(ii) Longer than 5 feet (1.52 meters) but less than or equal to 10
feet (3.04 meters) in length, irrespective of the weight. (3) Two tiedowns if the article is longer than 10 feet (3.04
meters), and one additional tiedown for every 10 feet (3.04 meters) of
article length, or fraction thereof, beyond the first 10 feet (3.04
meters) of length. Sec. 393.112 What is the strength required for load binders and
associated hardware?
The strength of load binders and hardware that are part of, or used
in conjunction with, a tiedown assembly must be equal to, or greater
than, the minimum strength specified for that tiedown assembly in
Sec. 393.106. Sec. 393.114 What is the minimum strength of an attachment point on a
vehicle? The strength of a hook, bolt, weld, or other connector attaching
the tiedown assembly to the commercial motor vehicle and the place and
means of mounting the connector must be equal to, or greater than, the
minimum strength required by Sec. 393.106 for that tiedown assembly. Sec. 393.116 What is the minimum strength for a winch or fastening
device? A winch or other fastening device mounted on a commercial motor
vehicle and used in conjunction with a tiedown assembly must have a
combined strength equal to or greater than the strength of the tiedown
assembly. Sec. 393.118 Must a tiedown be adjustable? A tiedown assembly, associated connectors, and attachment devices
must be designed, constructed, and maintained so the driver of an in-
transit commercial motor vehicle can tighten them. However, this
section does not apply to the use of steel strapping. Sec. 393.120 What are the requirements for front end structures used
as part of a cargo securement system? (a) Applicability. The rules in this section are applicable to
commercial motor vehicles transporting cargo that is in contact with
the front end structure of the vehicle. The front end structure on
these cargo-carrying vehicles must meet the performance requirements of
this section. (b) Height and width. (1) The front end structure must extend
either to a height of 4 feet above the floor of the vehicle or to a
height at which it blocks forward movement of any item of cargo being
carried on the vehicle, whichever is lower. (2) The front end structure must have a width which is at least
equal to the width of the vehicle or which blocks forward movement of
any item of cargo being transported on the vehicle, whichever is
narrower. (c) Strength. The front end structure must be capable of
withstanding the following horizontal forward static load: (1) For a front end structure less than 6 feet in height, a
horizontal forward static load equal to one-half (0.5) of the weight of
the cargo being transported on the vehicle uniformly distributed over
the entire portion of the front end structure that is within 4 feet
above the vehicle's floor or that is at or below a height above the
vehicle's floor at which it blocks forward movement of any item of the
vehicle's cargo, whichever is less; or (2) For a front end structure | 
Print