[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16069]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 6, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 393

[FHWA Docket No. MC-93-21]
RIN 2125-AD18

 

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Protection 
Against Shifting or Falling Cargo

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending the cargo securement requirements of the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to adopt the use of 
working load limits in specifying the minimum strength of cargo 
securement devices. The amendment requires that the aggregate working 
load limit of the tiedown assemblies used to secure an article against 
movement in any direction be at least
\1/2\ times the weight of the article secured. In addition, a table of 
working load limits is being included in the FMCSRs to provide motor 
carriers with a means of determining the number of tiedown assemblies 
required. It is the intent of this final rule to make the tiedown 
requirements easier to understand, use, and enforce. This action is in 
response to a petition from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 
(CVSA).

DATES: Effective August 5, 1994. The incorporation by reference of the 
publications listed in Sec. 393.102(b) of this final rule is approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 5, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Motor 
Carrier Standards, HCS-10, (202) 366-2981; or Mr. Charles E. Medalen, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-20, (202) 366-1354, Federal Highway 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D. C. 20590. 
Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through 
Friday, except legal Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 29, 1990, the CVSA petitioned the FHWA to change the 
criterion for cargo tiedown assemblies from ``static breaking 
strength'' to ``working load limit.'' The CVSA contends the static 
breaking strength of a tiedown assembly is a rating that incorporates 
no safety factor, though the rule itself does include such a factor. 
The CVSA also believes the use of working load limits will make the 
tiedown regulations easier to understand, use, and enforce. The 
petitioner asserts that working load limit is the strength criterion 
commonly used by the chain, cordage, wire rope, and web sling 
industries and that the term is widely known in the trucking industry. 
The use of the working load limits would thus promote direct 
correlation between the rule and the capabilities labeled on or 
indicated by load securement equipment.
    The CVSA proposed that the first sentence of Sec. 393.102(b) be 
amended to read ``Except for integral securement devices * * * the 
aggregate working load limit of the tiedown assemblies used to secure 
an article against movement in any direction must be at least \1/2\ 
times the weight of that article.'' The CVSA also proposed that chain, 
webbing, wire rope, and cordage meet certain manufacturing 
specifications or standards.
    On September 17, 1993, the FHWA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) (58 FR 48624) to adopt the use of working load limits 
and the incorporation by reference of chain, webbing, wire rope, and 
cordage manufacturing standards. Although the CVSA petition did not 
discuss standards for steel strapping, the FHWA proposed that Federal 
Specification No. A-A-880, Strapping, Steel Flat and Seals (May 13, 
1980), be incorporated by reference because Sec. 393.102 had referenced 
Federal Specification No. QQ-S-781 which has been cancelled. The FHWA 
believed it was necessary to retain specific requirements for steel 
strapping and that Federal Specification No. A-A-880 was an appropriate 
replacement.
    The FHWA also proposed to create a new section, Sec. 393.7, Matter 
incorporated by reference, to provide the language of incorporation 
required by 1 CFR 51, as well as to include information on the 
availability of documents incorporated by reference.

Discussion of Comments

    The FHWA received 23 comments to the NPRM. Several commenters 
provided more than one docket submission. The commenters were: 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates); American Trucking 
Associations, Inc. (ATA); Department of California Highway Patrol 
(CHP); Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA); Connecticut 
Department of Motor Vehicles (Connecticut); Cooper Tools; The Cordage 
Institute; The Crosby Group, Inc.; Great American Lines, Inc.; Illinois 
Department of Transportation (Illinois); Kinedyne Corporation; Maine 
State Police (Maine); The National Industrial Transportation League; 
New York Department of Transportation (New York); Owner-Operator 
Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA); United States 
Representative Jack Quinn, 30th District, New York; Steel Service 
Center Institute; Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA); and 
Mrs. Richard B. Wilson.

Use of Working Load Limits

    The commenters were generally in favor of amending Sec. 393.102(b) 
to incorporate the use of working load limits. The CHP and Great 
American Lines were both opposed to the use of working load limits.
    The CHP stated:

[Static breaking strength (SBS)] is a readily determined physical 
parameter. Conversely, the WLL, according to the NPRM is generally 
between \1/4\ and \1/3\ of the static breaking strength of the tiedown. 
The CHP is not aware of any regulation which defines WLL. Instead, each 
manufacturer makes this determination for its own products. In many 
cases this may be based on industry standard practice, but since these 
practices are voluntary, no means is available to assure conformance.
    In effect, the FHWA is abdicating its responsibility to determine 
proper tiedown standards by allowing manufacturers to determine the WLL 
of their devices. It is the opinion of the CHP that this parameter is 
far too critical to leave to a manufacturer's discretion.
    Unless the WLL for each type of binder is defined in the 
regulation, there will always be some ambiguity as to the strength of 
the device.
    Further, from an enforcement perspective, the WLL method could 
result in a hardship since WLL, based only on a factor determined by 
each manufacturer, is a much harder concept for enforcement/prosecution 
personnel to explain in court as opposed to the SBS, a parameter which 
is nearly intuitively obvious. Variations from manufacturer to 
manufacturer will further complicate the issue.
    Great American Lines, Inc., stated:
    [T]he current regulations as written in [Sec. ]393.102 [of the] 
FMCS[Rs] are more than sufficient. Properly trained drivers using the 
securement as specified in the current regulations will have no problem 
keeping the cargo on the trailer. Education is the key, not change. The 
changes as proposed can only confuse the drivers, carriers and 
enforcement officers and cause an extremely dangerous situation * * *.
    Changing to the C.V.S.A. guidelines can serve no good purpose and 
will confuse the people that it is meant to regulate. In the end the 
public will suffer. Don't change something that is working when 
properly applied.
    In its second docket submission, Great American Lines, Inc., stated 
that ``Neither the reasons presented in the text of the proposal nor at 
the congressional hearings preceding this notice of proposed rulemaking 
establish a problem with the regulation that warrant the changes being 
proposed.''
    The TTMA's position on the issue was contingent upon the FHWA's 
clarification of the term ``tiedown assemblies.'' The TTMA stated: ``If 
the term `tiedown assemblies,' as used in [Sec. ]393.102(b) includes 
trailer anchor points, then we object to changing `breaking strength' 
to `working load limit.'''
    It is true, as the CHP noted, that working load limits are based on 
each manufacturer's determination. That is also true for static 
breaking strength, however, and neither value can be tested during 
roadside enforcement. The FHWA notes that the terms ``static breaking 
strength'' and ``working load limit'' are defined in numerous technical 
dictionaries, manuals, and reference books. While each manufacturer 
makes a determination of the working load limits of its own products, 
the documents incorporated by reference, combined with certain other 
requirements in Sec. 393.102, eliminate the risk of voluntary or purely 
subjective standards. By incorporating by reference certain 
manufacturing standards, this rulemaking establishes specific minimum 
strength requirements for five categories of securement devices: steel 
strapping, chains, wire rope, cordage, and synthetic webbing.
    The FHWA does not believe that tiedown manufacturers will produce 
devices which fail to meet these minimum strength requirements. For 
those cases in which the manufacturing standards do not provide 
specific working load limits (e.g., the document lists breaking 
strength or a working load limit range), the final rule establishes the 
procedure for determining this information.
    In addition, the final rule includes a table of working load limits 
for some of the most commonly used types and sizes of tiedowns. The 
rule requires that the working load limits listed in the table be used 
when the tiedown material is not marked with its working load limit. 
The values listed in the table are based on the industry standards 
referenced in Sec. 393.102. Therefore, the uncertainty about the 
strength of a tiedown is limited to tiedowns which do not meet the 
manufacturing standards, and the rule prohibits the use of such 
tiedowns.
    As for the CHP's comments about possible difficulties in the 
enforcement of a working load limit requirement, it is clear that the 
CVSA, whose membership includes State officials charged with 
enforcement, considered this issue before petitioning the FHWA. Section 
393.102 specifies the relationship between the strength rating of the 
tiedown devices and the weight of the article being secured. If the 
strength rating and weight of the article are known, and the 
relationship between the two is clearly stated in Sec. 393.102, the 
inspecting official should not have to provide an engineering 
discussion or justification of the strength rating requirement. 
Furthermore, as the CVSA indicated in its petition, and as several 
tiedown manufacturers, manufacturers' associations, and enforcement 
agencies have stated in their comments in response to the NPRM, a 
working load limit requirement would be easier to understand, use, and 
enforce because tiedown manufacturers prefer to label their products 
with the working load limit as opposed to the static breaking strength. 
The manufacturers believe the use of working load limits would decrease 
the likelihood of accidental misuse or overloading of the tiedowns.
    The FHWA agrees with Great American Lines' emphasis on training and 
education. However, the number of accidents involving inadequately 
secured cargo suggests that some motor carriers do not understand or 
observe the current regulations. It must be noted that static breaking 
strength has been in use for approximately 20 years. During this time, 
education and training have played a role in reducing the number of 
cargo securement-related accidents to a relatively low level. The final 
rule is intended to make the cargo securement regulations easier to 
understand, use, and enforce in order to further reduce the incidence 
of cargo securement-related accidents.
    The TTMA asked whether the term ``tiedown assemblies'' in the 
current regulations includes trailer anchor points. The answer is 
technically no, but the anchor points have to meet the same standard. 
Section 393.102(d) requires that the hook, bolt, weld, or other 
connections by which a tiedown assembly is attached to a vehicle, and 
the mounting place and means of mounting the connector, be at least as 
strong as the tiedown assembly. The final rule does not reference any 
manufacturing standards or recommended practices for trailer anchor 
points nor does it require trailer manufacturers to change their 
current practices regarding anchor points. However, the FHWA encourages 
trailer manufacturers to provide information to motor carriers and 
enforcement officials about the strength of anchor points to improve 
their knowledge of the cargo restraint capabilities of anchor points.

Incorporation by Reference and the Table of Working Load Limits

    Generally, the commenters supported the inclusion of the table of 
working load limits in Sec. 393.102 and the incorporation by reference 
of certain industry standards. Several commenters, however, recommended 
additions and/or corrections to the table.
    Commenting in opposition to the incorporation by reference of 
industry standards, New York stated that ``[a]doption by reference will 
cause confusion and make conformance by the industry difficult and also 
require the industry and enforcement personnel to use numerous 
documents in determining appropriate securement methodologies. The 
regulations should be self-contained and clear in their wording.''
    Some commenters questioned the need for including requirements for 
steel strapping. Maine, for example, stated: ``While strapping may be 
used to secure materials to pallets, it is seldom used to hold freight 
to a vehicle. Since the material is not reused, it has little direct 
vehicle application.'' However, Connecticut argued that ``[e]nforcement 
of Section 393.102 would be greatly enhanced if most common dimensions 
and strengths of steel strapping were added to the tables of working 
load limits.'' The CVSA stated:
    The steel strap manufacturers have recently formed an association 
which is presently developing recommendations on their products. Steel 
strapping is typically not used as the primary load securement device. 
Normally the strapping will hold the cargo in bundles or to pallets 
while other devices are used to secure those bundles and pallets to the 
transporting vehicle. Because steel strapping is not often used as a 
direct tiedown device and since the strap manufacturers are now working 
through their association to develop strength and use guidelines, we 
recommend that this material not be included in the proposed rule at 
this time. The new industry standards may well supersede the federal 
specification referenced in the docket. Delaying action at this time 
could well reduce future confusion over regulatory requirements for 
steel strapping.
    As for the incorporation by reference of rope standards, the 
Cordage Institute stated that ``[s]isal and nylon ropes are not 
recommended [for cargo securement applications] and references to their 
standards [Sisal Rope Specifications (SRS-1), Nylon Rope Specifications 
(NRS-1), and Double Braided Nylon Rope Specifications (C1)] should be 
deleted.'' The Cordage Institute did not provide any information to 
support this recommendation and no other commenters addressed this 
subject. It was recommended that the new standards for polypropylene 
fiber rope (PPRS-2, revised August 1992) and polyester fiber rope 
(PETRS-2, revised January 1993) be used in place of P/PRS-1, May 1979 
and PRS-1, May 1979, respectively. The Cordage Institute also provided 
clarification of its recommendations on calculating working load limit 
values. Its policy on working load limit values has changed from using 
a specific design factor for each size of cordage/rope to a design 
factor range. This approach leaves the selection of a specific value to 
the particular applications for which the cordage will be used. For 
cargo securement applications involving polypropylene and polyester 
fiber ropes, the Cordage Institute recommended a design factor of 6--
the working load limit would be equal to \1/6\ of the minimum breaking 
strengths listed in PPRS-2 and PETRS-2. The Cordage Institute 
recommended that the working load limits for manila rope be \1/2\ that 
of the polypropylene fiber rope of the same diameter. Working load 
limit values were also recommended for ``California Truck Rope''--rope 
meeting the requirements of Title 13 of the California Code of 
Regulations, Sec. 1303(e). The Cordage Institute also suggested that 
the FHWA include California's Sec. 1303(e) requirements for synthetic 
fiber rope (e.g., rope shall be treated for ultraviolet resistance, 
rope must have an orange surface marker in each rope strand, 
prohibition on the use of solid orange rope, etc.).
    In response to those commenters opposed to the incorporation by 
reference of certain manufacturing standards, the FHWA notes that the 
intent of this process is to reduce the volume of material published in 
the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations by referencing 
relevant material published by the private sector. The legal effect of 
incorporation by reference is that the material is treated as if it 
were published in the Federal Register. This material, like any other 
properly issued regulation, has the force and effect of law. Motor 
carriers do not need to obtain copies of all of the materials which are 
incorporated by reference but only those that are relevant to their 
specific circumstances (e.g., carriers relying solely upon steel chains 
do not need to obtain copies of standards for steel strapping, cordage, 
webbing, or wire rope). Although there may be advantages to printing 
certain texts from private sector documents in the regulations, the 
FHWA does not intend Sec. 393.102 to be a technical reference on 
manufacturing standards. Both the volume and complexity of the 
information covered in the referenced documents is too great to be 
effectively presented in the FMCSRs.
    As for the specific documents to be incorporated by reference, the 
final rule differs from the NPRM in that it does not refer to Federal 
Specification No. A-A-880, Strapping, Steel Flat and Seals (May 13, 
1980). Instead, the final rule incorporates American Society for 
Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3953-91, Standard Specification for 
Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals. As the CVSA noted in its comments, 
steel strap manufacturers, working in conjunction with the ASTM, are 
currently developing recommendations or guidelines concerning the use 
of steel strapping in load securement. The FHWA has reviewed the 
preliminary strength and use guidelines that ASTM Subcommittee D10.14 
provided to the CVSA concerning breaking strengths and working load 
limits for steel strapping or banding. A copy of the preliminary 
strength and use guidelines is included in the docket file. The working 
load limits are \1/4\ of the breaking strengths (the breaking strength 
multiplied by a design factor of \1/3\ and a ``joint efficiency'' of 
0.75) listed in ASTM D3953-91.
    After a review of ASTM D3953-91, the FHWA has determined that the 
preliminary strength and use guidelines of ASTM Subcommittee D10.14 
have merit and could, to some extent, be addressed in the final rule 
through the incorporation by reference of ASTM D3953-91. The FHWA has 
compared the requirements of Federal Specification No. A-A-880 with 
those of ASTM D3953-91 and determined that the ASTM standard 
specification would serve as a better reference for manufacturers and 
carriers to use in determining if certain sizes or grades of steel 
strapping are adequate for cargo securement applications. Although the 
ASTM subcommittee (D10.14) is developing new guidelines, most of its 
preliminary recommendations are based on ASTM D3953-91. Therefore, the 
FHWA believes that it is appropriate to incorporate by reference the 
ASTM standard specification at this time, and consider the ASTM 
strength and use guidelines for incorporation after they have been 
published.
    As for cordage specifications, the FHWA is incorporating by 
reference (1) CRS-1, Polyester/Polypropylene Composite Rope 
Specifications, Three- and Eight-Strand Standard Construction, May 
1979, (2) PPRS-2, Polypropylene Fiber Rope, 3-Strand and 8-Strand 
Constructions, revised August 1992, (3) PETRS-2, Polyester Fiber Rope, 
3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions, revised January 1993, (4) NRS-1, 
Nylon Rope Specifications, Three- and Eight-Strand Standard 
Construction, May 1979, and (5) C1, Double Braided Nylon Rope 
Specifications, DBN-January 1984. The incorporation of CRS-1, NRS-1 and 
C1 is consistent with the NPRM and the inclusion of PPRS-2 and PETRS-2 
is in response to the docket comments. The FHWA has reviewed the 
Cordage Institute's recommendation concerning the working load limits 
for manila rope (three-strand laid construction), and notes that the 
recommendation results in (1) an increase in the working load limit for 
rope with diameters of \3/16\ through \1/2\ inch and 2\1/2\ through 4 
inches, and (2) a decrease in the working load limits for diameters of 
\9/16\ through 2\1/4\ inches. The increases in working load limits are 
generally between 1 and 5 percent for the 2\1/2\ through 4 inch 
diameter ropes. The percentage increases in the working load limits of 
\3/16\ through \1/2\-inch rope are much larger. However, the safety 
factors provided in MRS-1 for \3/16\ through \1/2\-inch rope were 
greater than those of the larger diameter ropes. The FHWA believes the 
working load limit recommendations of the Cordage Institute provide 
reasonable safety factors for manila rope. Accordingly, the FHWA is 
adopting these recommendations as part of the table of working load 
limits in the final rule. In light of the Cordage Institute's 
recommendations concerning manila rope working load limits, the FHWA 
does not believe that it is appropriate to incorporate by reference 
MRS-1. To do so would result in a contradiction between the working 
load limits contained in MRS-1 and the working load limits (for cargo 
securement applications) recommended by the Cordage Institute.
    The FHWA accepts the Cordage Institute's suggestion to delete the 
reference to sisal rope (SRS-1), but does not believe that excluding 
nylon rope specifications from the final rule is appropriate. The final 
rule is not intended to incorporate standards for all tiedown 
materials, but only the most commonly used. In that context, and in 
consideration of the relatively low working load limits for sisal rope 
the FHWA does not believe that including a specification for sisal rope 
is essential. The FHWA notes that the rule does not prohibit the use of 
sisal rope.
    As for the nylon rope specifications, the references remain as 
originally proposed. Although the agency cannot quantify the extent to 
which nylon rope is used, the working load limits for nylon rope are 
such that its usage in cargo securement applications is likely.
    The FHWA is not adopting the Cordage Institute's recommendation to 
include rope requirements similar to those used in the California Code 
of Regulations. With the exception of California's requirement for 
ultraviolet resistance, the FHWA considers this particular regulatory 
language unnecessarily design restrictive in that it would prohibit, 
without sufficient technical justification, certain synthetic rope and 
webbing based primarily on material and/or color, irrespective of its 
strength or safety for use in cargo securement. As for ultraviolet 
resistance requirements, the Cordage Institute did not provide, and the 
California regulations do not include, sufficient information to enable 
the FHWA to establish specific and objective regulatory language.
    The NPRM requested comments on the method used in determining the 
working load limit for wire rope which is not marked. Four commenters 
responded to this request. All supported the method described in the 
NPRM (i.e., \1/4\ of the nominal strength--the nominal strength 
multiplied by a design factor of \1/3\ and the ``termination 
efficiency,'' 0.75). Therefore, Sec. 393.102(b) includes this method 
for determining the working load limit of unmarked wire rope.

Marking and Labeling of Tiedown Devices

    Several commenters responded to the FHWA's questions concerning the 
need for requiring the use of only those tiedown devices which are 
marked or labeled with the working load limit. For example, the CVSA 
stated:
    Manufacturers of tiedowns have indicated that they are willing to 
mark load securement devices with working load limit ratings. We 
believe having working load values marked on load securement devices is 
a significant aid to their proper use and we would like to see such 
markings universally required.
    We recognize that presently, much of the tiedown equipment in the 
field is either unmarked or not directly marked with working load 
limit. As it would be an extreme waste of resources and a huge 
financial burden on carriers to scrap today's inventory of products not 
marked with working load limit, we would recommend the requirement for 
marking working load limits be made effective at some future date, 
i.e., three to five years. Another way to handle this would be to 
grandfather the tiedown equipment already manufactured and being used 
by the motor carrier industry.
    New York believed the final rule should ``clearly state that 
unmarked cargo securement devices, steel strapping, chain, webbing, 
wire rope, etc. will not be allowed and will cause vehicles 
transporting materials with unmarked devices to be placed out-of-
service. There is no way to effectively ensure the adequacy of unmarked 
devices.''
    The OOIDA stated:
    Owner-operators frequently purchase tie-down hooks, chains, wire 
ropes, etc. at truck stops or other similar locations. Drivers need to 
be assured that the items purchased meet all applicable safety 
standards. Therefore, the Agency should take steps to require prominent 
displays on packaging that will ensure that the product meets safety 
requirements. Specific details on packaging as to working load limit 
are preferable to general statements that manufacturing standards are 
met.
    While the FHWA is aware of the need for carriers and enforcement 
officials to be able to identify the various cargo securement devices 
and the associated working load limits, the final rule does not include 
a requirement for marking and labeling of these devices. Such a 
requirement must take into account manufacturers' practices as well as 
the need for uniformity. The commenters did not provide any listings of 
current marking and labeling practices to assist the FHWA in 
determining appropriate regulatory language. The agency cannot estimate 
what percentage of tiedown equipment currently in use by motor carriers 
or stocked by manufacturers and retailers is unmarked or not directly 
marked with a working load limit. Although a general requirement for 
the use of marked and labeled equipment could be included in 
Sec. 393.102, the absence of specific and objective guidelines as to 
what constitutes an acceptable mark or label for each type of tiedown 
(i.e., chain, synthetic webbing, wire rope, steel strapping, cordage) 
would create enforcement difficulties. The FHWA encourages tiedown 
manufacturers to develop uniform systems of marking and labeling their 
products to assist motor carriers and enforcement officials in 
determining working load limits.

Applicability of Cargo Securement Regulations to Shippers

    New York and the OOIDA expressed concern about the applicability of 
the cargo securement regulations to shippers. Citing the catastrophic 
results of accidents caused by inadequate securement of steel and 
aluminum products, New York believed the ``federal regulations should 
assign responsibility for proper cargo securement of steel and aluminum 
products to both the shipper and the carrier.'' The OOIDA stated:
    A large degree of responsibility for cargo securement lies squarely 
with the individual shipper. It is the shipper who selects and 
ultimately contracts with various motor carriers to transport their 
commodities. Each shipper has an obligation to scrutinize every 
prospective carrier and engage only those capable of providing the 
proper equipment and expertise necessary to safely haul their specific 
product.
    The FHWA acknowledges these concerns. Whatever the merits of these 
arguments, however, the FHWA has no statutory authority to regulate 
shippers of steel and aluminum products.

Future Rulemakings on Cargo Securement

    Several commenters discussed the need for amending or clarifying 
numerous provisions of the cargo securement regulations as well as the 
need for research. The Illinois Department of Transportation wrote:
    Illinois is concerned that application of the proposed aggregate 
working load limit formula may not provide adequate margins of safety. 
What may be considered adequate securement for general freight may not 
be adequate for other loads. The regulations identify unique securement 
standards for intermodal containers. Coils and metal articles also have 
special securement requirements. Cargo weight and load configuration 
both need to be factored into the performance standards expected from 
tiedown systems * * *.
    The potential gravity and actual severity of incidents involving 
the transportation of metal coils, their frequency of occurrence and 
the high number of apparent violations of the securement regulations 
give credibility to the need to reevaluate the securement regulations. 
These concerns have led Illinois to sponsor a university research 
project to examine the unique properties of metal coil cargo securement 
* * *.
    The project will take 15 months and focus upon five areas: (1) 
Review and evaluate current systems, (2) examine the volume of coils 
transported and the types of securement systems in use in Illinois, (3) 
evaluate the knowledge of persons using or enforcing the securement 
regulations, (4) perform engineering dynamic studies to evaluate 
securement systems, and (5) recommend improvements in securement 
systems and/or educational efforts for persons involved in both the 
transportation and enforcement areas of the regulations. Upon its 
completion, the results and conclusion of this project will be made 
available to FHWA and other parties interested in transportation 
safety.
    The research project will examine the dynamic forces affecting 
securement systems during normal driving and during less than ideal 
transportation conditions such as hard braking, emergency maneuvers or 
sharp radius turns. Illinois' data indicates loss of cargo commonly 
occurs during these less than ideal conditions.
    The FHWA welcomes efforts by academia, tiedown and vehicle 
manufacturers, motor carriers, and others conducting research or 
studies directed at reducing the incidence of cargo securement-related 
accidents. Currently the FHWA is working with the Canadian Council of 
Motor Transport Administrators, State and Provincial agencies 
responsible for motor carrier safety activities, and U.S. and Canadian 
industry groups to conduct a comprehensive research program on cargo 
securement. A report identifying certain cargo securement issues 
needing research and describing a program to address them was published 
by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation in November 1993. 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'' is included in the docket file. It is expected that this 
research, along with efforts such as those described by Illinois, will 
contribute greatly toward evaluating current cargo securement 
regulations and industry practices and providing recommendations for 
specific actions needed to improve safety.
    This final rule is not intended to preclude consideration of future 
rulemakings on cargo securement.

Discussion of Final Rule

    The FHWA is amending Sec. 393.102(b) to require that the aggregate 
working load limit of the tiedown assemblies used to secure an article 
against movement in any direction be at least \1/2\ the weight of the 
article secured. Steel strapping, chain, synthetic webbing, wire rope, 
and cordage used must meet certain manufacturing or performance 
standards which are incorporated by reference. The incorporation of 
these standards is intended to specify minimum requirements for 
tiedowns and not to restrict the use of tiedowns which exceed the 
criteria contained therein.
    Section 393.7, which was proposed in its entirety in the NPRM, was 
created by the final rule entitled ``Parts and Accessories Necessary 
for Safe Operation; Warning Devices for Stopped Vehicles'' (RIN 2125-
AD17; FHWA Docket No. MC-93-19), which is published elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register. The FHWA is amending Sec. 393.7, Matter 
incorporated by reference, to provide the language of incorporation 
required by 1 CFR 51 and to provide information on the availability of 
the incorporated documents. After a review of the responses to the 
September 17, 1993, NPRM and a determination that the incorporation by 
reference was necessary for the final rule, the FHWA submitted the 
documents listed in Sec. 393.102(b)(1) to (b)(5) to the Director of the 
Federal Register for approval in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 
CFR 51.
    The final rule does not require tiedowns to be marked or labeled. 
However, manufacturers of tiedowns and associated equipment are 
encouraged to provide motor carriers and enforcement officials with a 
means to easily determine the working load limits of their products. 
For those cases in which the tiedown manufacturing standards 
(incorporated by reference into the final rule) include guidelines for 
marking and labeling, adherence to those guidelines is encouraged, but 
is not mandated.
    Section 393.102(b) is amended to include a table of working load 
limits for common types and sizes of tiedown devices. The working load 
limits listed in the table are to be used when the tiedown material is 
not marked by the manufacturer with the working load limit. Tiedown 
materials marked by the manufacturer with working load limits which 
differ from the table, shall be considered to have a working load limit 
equal to the value for which they are marked.
    With regard to the working load limits for cordage, the table lists 
values for manila, polypropylene, polyester, and nylon cordage. For 
those cases in which the a synthetic rope does not have a 
manufacturers' marking or label to enable motor carriers and 
enforcement officials to distinguish between polypropylene, polyester 
fiber ropes, polyester/polypropylene composite rope, or nylon rope, the 
working load limits of polypropylene fiber rope shall be used. Since 
polypropylene fiber rope generally has a lower working load limit than 
polyester and nylon ropes, this provision is important to ensure 
safety. The agency notes that the working load limits for nylon rope 
are based on the specific design factors in the nylon rope 
specifications, NRS-1 and C1. These design factors are between 9 and 12 
for three- and eight-strand standard construction nylon rope and 
between 7 and 11 for double braided nylon rope. As a result, the 
working load limits shown in Sec. 393.102 for certain sizes of nylon 
rope are lower than that for polypropylene fiber rope. Considering the 
Cordage Institute's recommendation for a design factor of 6 for 
polypropylene fiber rope and polyester rope, the FHWA believes that the 
use of polypropylene fiber rope working load limits is appropriate in 
those cases in which the rope cannot be identified as nylon. The table 
of working load limits does not include information on polyester/
polypropylene composite rope because the working load limit values are 
generally very close, if not identical, to those of polypropylene fiber 
rope.
    In the case of steel strapping, wire rope, and cordage, the final 
rule includes a procedure for calculating the working load limits. The 
published industry standards for these materials use breaking 
strengths, nominal strengths, and working load limit ranges 
respectively. To ensure consistency in calculating the working load 
limits and an appropriate safety margin in determining the number of 
tiedown devices required, these procedures must be used when the 
working load limit is not provided by the manufacturer or when the 
manufacturer provides working load limit ranges for cargo securement 
applications.

Ruelmaking Analysis and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule amends the requirements for the strength ratings 
for cargo securement devices. The FHWA has determined that this is not 
a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 
12866 or significant within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the 
economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. The final rule 
requires that the aggregate working load limits of the tiedown 
assemblies used to secure cargo be at least 1/2 times the weight of the 
article being secured. The total number of tiedown assemblies required 
by the rule would generally be the same as or slightly more than the 
number required using the previous breaking strength terminology. It is 
anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be 
minimal. Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the agency has evaluated the effects of this rulemaking on small 
entities. As previously stated, the final rule amends Sec. 393.102(b) 
of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations by requiring that the 
aggregate working load limits of the tiedown assemblies used to secure 
cargo be at least 1/2 times the weight of the article being secured. 
The total number of tiedown assemblies required by the rule would 
generally be the same as or slightly more than the number required 
prior to this amendment. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA certifies 
that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that this rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications 
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. Nothing in this 
document directly preempts any State law or regulation.

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 apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document does not contain information collection requirements 
[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 that this action would not have any effect on the 
quality of the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda 
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

    Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers, Motor 
vehicle safety.

    Issued on: June 23, 1994.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending part 393 of 
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.

PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION 
[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 393 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 
1993 (1991), 49 U.S.C. 3102; 49 U.S.C. app. 2505; 49 CFR 1.48.
    2. Section 393.7 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(2) through 
(b)(6) to read as follows:


Sec. 393.7  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) Availability. The materials incorporated by reference are 
available as follows:
    (1) * * *
    (2) Specifications of the American Society for Testing and 
Materials. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: 
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    (3) Specifications of the National Association of Chain 
Manufacturers. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: 
National Association of Chain Manufacturers, P.O. Box 3143, York, 
Pennsylvania 17402-0143.
    (4) Specifications of the Web Sling and Tiedown Association. 
Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: Web Sling and 
Tiedown Association, Inc., 710 East Ogden Avenue, Suite 113, 
Naperville, Illinois 60563.
    (5) Manuals of the Wire Rope Technical Board. Information and 
copies may be obtained by writing to: Wire Rope Technical Committee, 
P.O. Box 849, Stevensville, Maryland 21666.
    (6) Standards of the Cordage Institute. Information and copies may 
be obtained by writing to: Cordage Institute, 350 Lincoln Street, 
 115, Hingham, Massachusetts 02043.
    (7)-(9) [Reserved].
* * * * *
    3. Section 393.102 is amended by removing paragraph (g) and by 
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 393.102  Securement systems.

* * * * *
    (b) Tiedown assemblies. Except for integral securement devices of 
containers designed for the transportation of containerized, intermodal 
cargo which conform to the rules in Sec. 393.100(e), the aggregate 
working load limit of the tiedown assemblies used to secure an article 
against movement in any direction must be at least 1/2 times the weight 
of the article. With the exception of marking identification, tiedowns 
used must meet applicable manufacturing standards listed in this 
paragraph (b).
    (1) Steel strapping. Steel strapping used as a component of a 
tiedown assembly must conform to the requirements of the 1991 edition 
of the American Society for Testing and Materials' Standard 
Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals, ASTM D3953-91. Steel 
strapping which is not marked by the manufacturer with a working load 
limit, shall be considered to have a working load limit equal to 1/4 of 
the breaking strength listed in ASTM D3953-91. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for 
information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this 
document.) Steel strapping that is one inch wide or wider must have at 
least two pairs of crimps in each seal and when an end-over-end lap 
joint is formed, it must be sealed with at least two seals.
    (2) Chain. Chain used as a component of a tiedown assembly must 
conform to the requirements of the June 15, 1990, edition of the 
National Association of Chain Manufacturers' Welded Steel Chain 
Specifications applicable to all types of chain. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for 
information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this 
document.)
    (3) Webbing. Webbing used as a component of a tiedown assembly must 
conform to the requirements of the 1991 edition of the Web Sling and 
Tiedown Association's Recommended Standard Specification for Synthetic 
Webbing Tiedowns. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for information on the 
incorporation by reference and availability of this document.)
    (4) Wire rope. Wire rope used as a component of a tiedown assembly 
must conform to the requirements of the November 1985 second edition of 
the Wire Rope Technical Board's Wire Rope Users Manual. 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 \1/4\ of the nominal 
strength listed in the Wire Rope Users Manual. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for 
information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this 
document.)
    (5) Cordage. Cordage used as a component of a tiedown assembly, 
must conform to the applicable Cordage Institute rope standards listed 
below: PETRS-2, Polyester Fiber Rope, 3-Strand and 8-Strand 
Constructions, January, 1993; PPRS-2, Polypropylene Fiber Rope, 3-
Strand and 8-Strand Constructions, August, 1992; CRS-1, Polyester/
Polypropylene Composite Rope Specifications, Three- and Eight-Strand 
Standard Construction, May 1979; NRS-1, Nylon Rope Specifications, 
Three- and Eight-Strand Standard Construction, May 1979; C1, Double 
Braided Nylon Rope Specifications, DBN-January 1984. (See Sec. 393.7(b) 
for information on the incorporation by reference and availability of 
these documents.)
    (6) Tables of working load limits. The working load limits listed 
in the tables in this paragraph 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 which differ from the table, shall be considered to have a 
working load limit equal to the value for which they are marked. 
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.

                             Tables to Sec. 393.102(b)(6)--Working Load Limits (WLL)                            
                                           [Chain WLL in pounds (kg)]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Grade 3 proof     Grade 4 high         Grade 7                      
             Size inch (mm)                     coil              test           transport        Grade 8 alloy 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/4\ (7)...............................        1300 (590)       2600 (1180)       3150 (1430)       3500 (1590)
\5/16\ (8)..............................        1900 (860)       3900 (1770)       4700 (2130)       5100 (2310)
\3/8\ (10)..............................       2650 (1200)       5400 (2450)       6600 (2990)       7100 (3220)
\7/16\ (11).............................       3500 (1590)       5800 (2630)       8750 (3970)  ................
\1/2\ (13)..............................       4500 (2040)       9200 (4170)      11300 (5130)      12000 (5440)
\5/8\ (16)..............................       6900 (3130)      11500 (5220)      15800 (7170)      18100 (8210)
Chain Mark..............................                PC                HT  ................                 T
Examples................................                 3                 4                 7                 8
                                                        30                40                70                80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Synthetic Webbing WLL                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Width inch (mm)                       WLL pounds (kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-\3/4\ (45)..........................................        1750 (790)
2 (50)................................................        2000 (910)
3 (75)................................................       3000 (1360)
4 (100)...............................................       4000 (1810)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   Wire Rope (6 X 37, Fiber Core) WLL                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Diameter inch (mm)                     WLL pounds (kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/4\ (7).............................................        1400 (640)
\5/16\ (8)............................................        2100 (950)
\3/8\ (10)............................................       3000 (1360)
\7/16\ (11)...........................................       4100 (1860)
\1/2\ (13)............................................       5300 (2400)
\5/8\ (16)............................................       8300 (3770)
\3/4\ (20)............................................      10900 (4940)
\7/8\ (22)............................................      16100 (7300)
1 (25)................................................      20900 (9480)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                             Manila Rope WLL                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
\3/8\ (10)............................................          205 (90)
\7/16\ (11)...........................................         265 (120)
\1/2\ (13)............................................         315 (150)
\5/8\ (16)............................................         465 (210)
\3/4\ (20)............................................         640 (290)
1 (25)................................................        1050 (480)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
   Polypropylene Fiber Rope WLL (3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
\3/8\ (10)............................................         400 (180)
\7/16\ (11)...........................................         525 (240)
\1/2\ (13)............................................         625 (280)
\5/8\ (16)............................................         925 (420)
\3/4\ (20)............................................        1275 (580)
1 (25)................................................        2100 (950)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
     Polyester Fiber Rope WLL (3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions)     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
\3/8\ (10)............................................         555 (250)
\7/16\ (11)...........................................         750 (340)
\1/2\ (13)............................................         960 (440)
\5/8\ (16)............................................        1500 (680)
\3/4\ (20)............................................        1880 (850)
1 (25)................................................       3300 (1500)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                                                                        
                             Nylon Rope WLL                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
\3/8\ (10)............................................         278 (130)
\7/16\ (11)...........................................         410 (190)
\1/2\ (13)............................................         525 (240)
\5/8\ (16)............................................         935 (420)
\3/4\ (20)............................................        1420 (640)
1 (25)................................................       2520 (1140)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                      Double Braided Nylon Rope WLL                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
\3/8\ (10)............................................         336 (150)
\7/16\ (11)...........................................         502 (230)
\1/2\ (13)............................................         655 (300)
\5/8\ (16)............................................        1130 (510)
\3/4\ (20)............................................        1840 (830)
1 (25)................................................       3250 (1470)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Steel Strapping WLL                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Width - thickness inch                   WLL pounds (kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-\1/4\  x  0.029.....................................        1190 (540)
1-\1/4\  x  0.031.....................................        1190 (540)
1-\1/4\  x  0.035.....................................        1190 (540)
1-\1/4\  x  0.044.....................................        1690 (770)
1-\1/4\  x  0.050.....................................        1690 (770)
1-\1/4\  x  0.057.....................................        1925 (870)
2  x  0.044...........................................       2650 (1200)
2  x  0.050...........................................       2650 (1200)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-16069 Filed 7-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P