[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 243 (Monday, December 18, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79050-79068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31919]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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. ``Friction 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 6 feet in height or higher, a 
horizontal forward static load equal to four-tenths (0.4) of the weight 
of the cargo being transported on the vehicle uniformly distributed 
over the entire front end structure.
    (d) Penetration resistance. The front end structure must be 
designed, constructed, and maintained so that it is capable of 
resisting penetration by any item of cargo that contacts it when the 
vehicle decelerates at a rate of 20 feet per second, per second. The 
front end structure must have no aperture large enough to permit any 
item of cargo in contact with the structure to pass through it.
    (e) Substitute devices. The requirements of this section may be met 
by the use of devices performing the same functions as a front end 
structure, if the devices are at least as strong as, and provide 
protection against shifting cargo at least equal to, a front end 
structure which conforms to those requirements.

Specific Securement Requirements by Commodity Type


Sec. 393. 122  What are the rules for securing logs?

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section are applicable to the 
transportation of logs that are unitized by banding or other comparable 
means. Loads that consist of no more than four processed logs may be 
transported in accordance with the general cargo securement rules of 
Secs. 393.100 through 393.120. Firewood, stumps, log debris and other 
such short logs must be transported in a vehicle or container enclosed 
on both sides, front, and rear and of adequate strength to contain 
them. Longer logs may also be so loaded. This section applies to 
transportation of all other logs. A stack of logs that is composed of 
both shortwood and longwood must be treated as shortwood.
    (b) Components of a securement system. (1) Logs must be transported 
on a vehicle designed and built, or adapted, for the transportation of 
logs. Any such vehicle must be fitted with bunks, bolsters, stakes or 
standards, or other equivalent means, that cradle the logs and prevent 
them from rolling.
    (2) All vehicle components involved in securement of logs must be 
designed and built to withstand all anticipated operational forces 
without failure, accidental release or permanent deformation. Stakes or 
standards that are not permanently attached to the vehicle must be 
secured in a manner that prevents unintentional separation from the 
vehicle in transit.
    (3) Tiedowns must be used in combination with the stabilization 
provided by bunks, stakes and bolsters to secure the load.
    (c) Use of securement system. (1) Logs must be solidly packed, and 
the outer

[[Page 79063]]

bottom logs must be in contact with and resting solidly against the 
bunks, bolsters, or stakes.
    (2) Each outside log must touch at least two bunks, bolsters, or 
stakes, but if one end does not actually touch a stake, it must rest on 
other logs in a stable manner and must extend beyond the end of the 
stake.
    (3) The center of the highest outside log on each side or end must 
be below the top of each stake.
    (4) Each log that is not held in place by contact with other logs 
or the stakes must be held in place by an indirect tiedown. Additional 
tiedowns or securement devices must be used when the condition of the 
wood results in such low friction between logs that they are likely to 
slip upon each other.
    (d) Frame vehicle(s). (1) Shortwood loaded lengthwise must be 
cradled in a bunk unit, and must be secured to the vehicle by at least 
two indirect tiedowns.
    (2) Longwood must be cradled in two or more bunks, and must be 
secured to the vehicle by at least two indirect tiedowns at locations 
along the load that provide effective securement.
    (3) The aggregate working load limit for all tiedowns securing a 
stack of logs must be no less than one-sixth the weight of the stack of 
logs.
    (4) Shortwood loaded crosswise must be secured in the same manner 
as required for rail trucks and trailers.
    (e) Rail vehicle(s). (1) Logs in the bottom tier of shortwood 
loaded crosswise must be supported by vehicle structure within 30 cm 
(12 inches) of each end.
    (2) One stack of shortwood loaded crosswise must be secured with at 
least two indirect tiedowns. These must attach to the vehicle frame at 
the front and rear of the load, and must cross the load lengthwise.
    (3) Where two indirect tiedowns are used, they must be positioned 
about one-third of the logs' length in from each end of the logs.
    (4) A rail vehicle over 10 m (33 feet) long must be fitted with 
center stakes to divide it into two sections about equal in length. 
Where a vehicle is so divided, each tiedown must secure the highest log 
on each side of the center stake, and must be fastened below these 
logs. It may be fixed at each end and tensioned from the middle, or 
fixed in the middle and tensioned from each end, or may pass through a 
pulley or equivalent in the middle and be tensioned from one end.
    (5) Any structure or stake that is subjected to an upward force 
when the tiedowns are tensioned must be anchored to resist that force.
    (6) If two stacks of shortwood can fit side-by-side within the 
allowable width, they may be so loaded, provided:
    (i) There is no space between the two stacks of logs;
    (ii) The outside of each stack is raised at least 2.5 cm (1 in) 
within 10 cm (4 in) of the end of the logs or the side of the vehicle;
    (iii) The highest log is no more than 2.44 m (8 ft) above the deck; 
and
    (iv) At least one tiedown is used lengthwise across each stack of 
logs .
    (f) Flatbed vehicle(s). (1) Shortwood loaded crosswise must be 
secured in the same manner as required for rail vehicle(s).
    (2) Shortwood loaded lengthwise must be contained by stakes.
    (3) Each stack of logs must be secured by at least two indirect 
tiedowns. However, if all logs in any stack are blocked in the front by 
a headboard strong enough to restrain the load, or another stack of 
logs, and blocked in the rear by another stack of logs or vehicle end 
structure, the stack may be secured with one tiedown. If one tiedown is 
used, it must be about midway between the stakes.
    (4) Longwood loaded lengthwise must be contained by stakes.
    (5) The aggregate working load limit for all tiedowns must be no 
less than one-sixth the weight of the stack logs.
    (6) Each outside log must be secured by at least two indirect 
tiedowns.
    (g) Securement of logs transported on pole trailers. (1) The load 
must be secured by at least one tiedown at each bunk, or alternatively, 
by at least two tiedowns used as wrappers that encircle the entire load 
at locations along the load that provide effective securement.
    (2) The front and rear wrappers must be at least 3.04 meters (10 
feet) apart.
    (3) Large diameter single and double log loads must be immobilized 
with chock blocks or other equivalent means to prevent shifting.
    (4) Large diameter logs that rise above stakes must be secured to 
the underlying load with at least two additional wrappers.


Sec. 393.124  What are the rules for securing dressed lumber or similar 
building products?

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the 
transportation of bundles of dressed lumber, packaged lumber, building 
products such as plywood, gypsum board or other materials of similar 
shape. Lumber or building products which are not bundled or packaged 
must be treated as loose items and transported in accordance with 
Secs. 393.100 through 393.120 of this subpart. For the purpose of this 
section, ``bundle'' refers to packages of lumber, building materials or 
similar products which are unitized for securement as a single item of 
cargo.
    (b) Securement of bundles transported using no more than one tier. 
(1) Bundles must be placed side by side in direct contact with each 
other, or a means must be provided to prevent bundles shifting towards 
each other.
    (2) Bundles carried on one tier must be secured in accordance with 
the general provisions of Secs. 393.100 through 393.120.
    (c) Securement of bundles transported using more than one tier. 
Bundles carried in more than one tier must be either:
    (1) Blocked against lateral movement by stakes on the sides of the 
vehicle and secured by indirect tiedowns laid out over the top tier, as 
outlined in the general provisions of Secs. 393.100 through 393.120; or
    (2) Restrained from lateral movement by blocking or high friction 
devices between tiers and secured by indirect tiedowns laid out over 
the top tier, as outlined in the general provisions of Secs. 393.100 
through 393.120; or
    (3) Placed directly on top of other bundles or on spacers and 
secured in accordance with the following:
    (i) The length of spacers between bundles must provide support to 
all pieces in the bottom row of the bundle.
    (ii) The width of individual spacers must be greater than the 
height.
    (iii) If spacers are comprised of layers of material, the layers 
must be unitized or fastened together in a manner which ensures that 
the spacer performs as a single piece of material.
    (iv) The arrangement of the tiedowns for the bundles must be:
    (A) Secured by indirect tiedowns over the second tier of bundles, 
or at a height of 1.85 m (6 ft) above the trailer deck, whichever is 
greater. If the top tiers are less than 1.85 m (6 ft) above the trailer 
deck, they may be secured in accordance with the general provisions of 
Secs. 393.100 through 393.120; and
    (B) Secured by indirect tiedowns over the top tier of bundles, in 
accordance with the general provisions of Secs. 393.100 through 393.120 
with a minimum of two indirect tiedowns for bundle(s) longer than 1.52 
m (5 ft); or
    (C) Secured by indirect tiedowns laid out over each tier of 
bundles, in accordance with Secs. 393.100 through 393.120 using a 
minimum of two indirect tiedowns over each top bundle(s) longer than 
1.52 m (5 ft), in all other circumstances.

[[Page 79064]]

Sec. 393.126  What are the rules for securing metal coils?

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the 
transportation of one or more metal coils which, individually or 
together, weigh 2268 kg (5000 pounds) or more. Shipments of metal coils 
that weigh less than 2268 kg (5000 pounds) may be secured in accordance 
with the provisions of Secs. 393.100 through 393.120.
    (b) Coils with eyes vertical on a flatbed vehicle, in a sided 
vehicle or intermodal container with anchor points--(1) An individual 
coil. Tiedowns must be arranged in a manner to prevent the coils from 
tipping in the forward, rearward, and lateral directions. The restraint 
system must include the following:
    (i) At least one indirect tiedown attached diagonally from the left 
side of the vehicle or intermodal container (near the forwardmost part 
of the coil), across the eye of the coil, to the right side of the 
vehicle or intermodal container (near the rearmost part of the coil);
    (ii) At least one indirect tiedown attached diagonally from the 
right side of the vehicle or intermodal container (near the forward-
most part of the coil), across the eye of the coil, to the left side of 
the vehicle or intermodal container (near the rearmost part of the 
coil);
    (iii) At least one indirect tiedown attached transversely over the 
eye of the coil; and
    (iv) Either blocking and bracing, friction mats or direct tiedowns 
must be used to prevent longitudinal movement in the forward direction.
    (2) Coils grouped in rows. For vehicles transporting coils which 
are grouped and loaded side by side in a transverse or longitudinal 
row, the coils must be secured by the following:
    (i) At least one direct tiedown attached to the front of the row of 
coils, restraining against forward motion, and whenever practicable, 
making an angle no more than 45 degrees with the floor of the vehicle 
or intermodal container when viewed from the side of the vehicle or 
container;
    (ii) At least one direct tiedown attached to the rear of the row of 
coils, restraining against rearward motion, and whenever practicable, 
making an angle no more than 45 degrees with the floor of the vehicle 
or intermodal container when viewed from the side of the vehicle or 
container;
    (iii) At least one indirect tiedown over the top of each coil or 
transverse row of coils, restraining against vertical motion. Indirect 
tiedowns going over the top of a coil(s) must be as close as 
practicable to the eye of the coil and positioned to prevent the 
tiedown from slipping or becoming unintentionally unfastened while the 
vehicle is in transit; and
    (iv) Direct tiedowns, blocking or bracing must be arranged to 
prevent shifting or tipping in the forward, rearward and lateral 
directions.
    (c) Coils with eyes crosswise on a flatbed vehicle, in a sided 
vehicle or intermodal container with anchor points--(1) An individual 
coil. The coil must be secured by the following:
    (i) A means (e.g., timbers, chocks or wedges, a cradle, etc.) to 
prevent the coil from rolling. The means of preventing rolling must 
support the coil off the deck, and must not be capable of becoming 
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit. If 
timbers, chocks or wedges are used, they must be held in place by coil 
bunks or similar devices to prevent them from coming loose. The use of 
nailed blocking or cleats as the sole means to secure timbers, chocks 
or wedges, or a nailed wood cradle, is prohibited;
    (ii) At least one direct tiedown through its eye, restricting 
against forward motion, and whenever practicable, making an angle no 
more than 45 degrees with the floor of the vehicle or intermodal 
container when viewed from the side of the vehicle or container; and
    (iii) At least one direct tiedown through its eye, restricting 
against rearward motion, and whenever practicable, making an angle no 
more than 45 degrees with the floor of the vehicle or intermodal 
container when viewed from the side of the vehicle or container.
    (2) Prohibition on crossing of chains when coils are transported 
with eyes crosswise. Attaching direct tiedowns diagonally through the 
eye of a coil to form an X-pattern when viewed from above the vehicle 
is prohibited.
    (d) Coils with eyes lengthwise on a flatbed vehicle, in a sided 
vehicle or intermodal container with anchor points--(1) An individual 
coil--option 1. The coil must be secured by:
    (i) A means (e.g., timbers, chocks or wedges, a cradle, etc.) to 
prevent the coil from rolling. The means of preventing rolling must 
support the coil off the deck, and must not be capable of becoming 
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit. If 
timbers, chocks or wedges are used, they must be held in place by coil 
bunks or similar devices to prevent them from coming loose. The use of 
nailed blocking or cleats as the sole means to secure timbers, chocks 
or wedges, or a nailed wood cradle, is prohibited;
    (ii) At least one direct tiedown attached diagonally through its 
eye from the left side of the vehicle or intermodal container (near the 
forward-most part of the coil), to the right side of the vehicle or 
intermodal container (near the rearmost part of the coil), making an 
angle no more than 45 degrees, whenever practicable, with the floor of 
the vehicle or intermodal container when viewed from the side of the 
vehicle or container;
    (iii) At least one direct tiedown attached diagonally through its 
eye, from the right side of the vehicle or intermodal container (near 
the forward-most part of the coil), to the left side of the vehicle or 
intermodal container (near the rearmost part of the coil), making an 
angle no more than 45 degrees, whenever practicable, with the floor of 
the vehicle or intermodal container when viewed from the side of the 
vehicle or container;
    (iv) At least one indirect tiedown transversely over the top of the 
coil; and
    (v) Either blocking, or friction mats to prevent longitudinal 
movement in the forward direction.
    (2) An individual coil--option 2. The coil must be secured by:
    (i) A means (e.g., timbers, chocks or wedges, a cradle, etc.) to 
prevent the coil from rolling. The means of preventing rolling must 
support the coil off the deck, and must not be capable of becoming 
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit. If 
timbers, chocks or wedges are used, they must be held in place by coil 
bunks or similar devices to prevent them from coming loose. The use of 
nailed blocking or cleats as the sole means to secure timbers, chocks 
or wedges, or a nailed wood cradle, is prohibited;
    (ii) At least one direct tiedown attached straight through its eye 
from the left side of the vehicle or intermodal container (near the 
forward-most part of the coil), to the left side of the vehicle or 
intermodal container (near the rearmost part of the coil), and, 
whenever practicable, making an angle no more than 45 degrees with the 
floor of the vehicle or intermodal container when viewed from the side 
of the vehicle or container;
    (iii) At least one direct tiedown attached straight through its 
eye, from the right side of the vehicle or intermodal container (near 
the forward-most part of the coil), to the right side of the vehicle or 
intermodal container (near the rearmost part of the coil), and whenever 
practicable, making an angle no more than 45 degrees with the floor of 
the vehicle or intermodal container when viewed from the side of the 
vehicle or container;

[[Page 79065]]

    (iv) At least one indirect tiedown transversely over the top of the 
coil; and
    (v) Either blocking, or friction mats to prevent longitudinal 
movement in the forward direction.
    (3) An individual coil--option 3. The coil must be secured by:
    (i) A means (e.g., timbers, chocks or wedges, a cradle, etc.) to 
prevent the coil from rolling. The means of preventing rolling must 
support the coil off the deck, and must not be capable of becoming 
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit. If 
timbers, chocks or wedges are used, they must be held in place by coil 
bunks or similar devices to prevent them from coming loose. The use of 
nailed blocking or cleats as the sole means to secure timbers, chocks 
or wedges, or a nailed wood cradle, is prohibited;
    (ii) At least one indirect tiedown over the top of the coil, 
located near the forward-most part of the coil;
    (iii) At least one indirect tiedown over the top of the coil 
located near the rearmost part of the coil; and
    (iv) Either blocking or friction mats to prevent longitudinal 
movement in the forward direction.
    (4) Rows of coils. A transverse row of coils having approximately 
equal outside diameters must be secured with:
    (i) A means (e.g., timbers, chocks or wedges, a cradle, etc.) to 
prevent each coil in the row of coils from rolling. The means of 
preventing rolling must support each coil off the deck, and must not be 
capable of becoming unintentionally unfastened or loose while the 
vehicle is in transit. If timbers, chocks or wedges are used, they must 
be held in place by coil bunks or similar devices to prevent them from 
coming loose. The use of nailed blocking or cleats as the sole means to 
secure timbers, chocks or wedges, or a nailed wood cradle, is 
prohibited;
    (ii) At least two indirect tiedowns over the top of each coil or 
transverse row; and
    (iii) Either blocking, bracing or friction mats to prevent 
longitudinal movement in the forward direction for each coil.
    (e) Coils in a sided vehicle or intermodal container without anchor 
points. Metal coils transported in a vehicle with sides or an 
intermodal container without anchor points must be loaded in a manner 
to prevent shifting and tipping. The coils must be secured to prevent 
lateral and longitudinal movement and tipping by the use of friction 
mats, or a system of blocking and bracing or tiedowns, and either 
blocking and bracing.


Sec. 393.128  What are the rules for securing paper rolls?

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to shipments of 
paper rolls which, individually or together, weigh 2268 kg (5000 lb) or 
more. Shipments of paper rolls that weigh less than 2268 kg (5000 lb), 
and paper rolls that are unitized on a pallet, may either be secured in 
accordance with the rules in this section or the requirements of 
Secs. 393.100 through 393.120.
    (b) Rules for paper rolls loaded with eyes vertical in a sided 
vehicle. (1) Paper rolls must be placed tightly against the walls of 
the vehicle, other paper rolls, or other cargo, to prevent movement 
during transit.
    (2) If there are not enough paper rolls in the shipment to reach 
the walls of the vehicle, lateral movement must be prevented by filling 
the void, blocking, bracing, tiedowns or friction mats. The paper rolls 
may also be banded together.
    (3) When any void behind a group of paper rolls, including that at 
the rear of the vehicle, exceeds the diameter of the paper rolls, 
rearward movement must be prevented by friction mats, blocking, 
bracing, tiedowns, or banding to other rolls.
    (4)(i) If a paper roll is not prevented from tipping or falling 
sideways or rearwards by vehicle structure or other cargo, and its 
width is more than 2 times its diameter, it must be prevented from 
tipping or falling by banding it to other rolls, bracing, or tiedowns.
    (ii) If the forwardmost roll(s) in a group of paper rolls is not 
prevented from tipping or falling forwards by vehicle structure or 
other cargo and it is restrained against forward movement by friction 
mat(s) alone, and its width is more than 1.75 times its diameter, it 
must be prevented from tipping or falling forwards by banding it to 
other rolls, bracing, or tiedowns.
    (iii) Otherwise, when a paper roll or the forwardmost roll in 
groups of rolls that are not prevented from tipping or falling forwards 
by vehicle structure or other cargo and its width exceeds 1.25 times 
its diameter it must be prevented from tipping or falling by banding to 
other rolls, bracing or tiedowns.
    (5) If paper rolls are banded together, the rolls must be placed 
tightly against each other to form a stable group. The bands must be 
applied tightly, and must be secured so that they cannot fall off the 
rolls or to the deck.
    (6) A friction mat used to provide the principal securement for a 
paper roll must protrude from beneath the roll in the direction in 
which it is providing that securement.
    (c) Rules for split loads of paper rolls loaded with eyes vertical 
in a sided vehicle. (1) If a paper roll in a split load is not 
prevented from forward movement by vehicle structure or other cargo, it 
must be prevented from forward movement by filling the open space, or 
by blocking, bracing, tiedowns, friction mats, or some combination of 
these.
    (2) A friction mat used to provide the principal securement for a 
paper roll must protrude from beneath the roll in the direction in 
which it is providing that securement.
    (d) Rules for stacked loads of paper rolls loaded with eyes 
vertical in a sided vehicle. (1) Paper rolls must not be loaded on a 
layer of paper rolls beneath unless that layer extends to the front of 
the vehicle.
    (2) Paper rolls in the second and subsequent layers must be 
prevented from forward, rearward or lateral movement by means as 
allowed for the bottom layer, or by use of a blocking roll from a lower 
layer.
    (3) The blocking roll must be at least 50 mm (2 in) taller than 
other rolls, or must be raised at least 38 mm (1.5 in) using dunnage.
    (4) A roll in the rearmost row of any layer must not be raised 
using dunnage.
    (e) Rules for securing paper rolls loaded with eyes crosswise in a 
sided vehicle. (1) The paper rolls must be prevented from rolling or 
shifting longitudinally by contact with vehicle structure or other 
cargo, by chocks, wedges or blocking and bracing of adequate size, or 
by tiedowns.
    (2) Chocks, wedges or blocking must be held securely in place by 
some means in addition to friction, so they cannot become 
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit.
    (3) The rearmost roll must not be secured using the rear doors of 
the vehicle or intermodal container, or by blocking held in place by 
those doors.
    (4) If there is more than a total of 203 mm (8 in) of space between 
the ends of a paper roll, or a row of rolls, and the walls of the 
vehicle, void fillers, blocking, bracing, friction mats, or tiedowns 
must be used to prevent the roll from shifting towards either wall.
    (f) Rules for stacked loads of paper rolls loaded with eyes 
horizontal and crosswise in a sided vehicle. (1) Rolls must not be 
loaded in a second layer unless the bottom layer extends to the front 
of the vehicle.
    (2) Rolls must not be loaded in a higher layer unless all wells in 
the layer beneath are filled.
    (3) The foremost roll in each upper layer, or any roll with an 
empty well in front of it, must be secured against forward movement by:

[[Page 79066]]

    (i) Banding it to other rolls, or
    (ii) Blocking against an adequately secured eye-vertical blocking 
roll resting on the floor of the vehicle which is at least 1.5 times 
taller than the diameter of the roll being blocked, or
    (iii) Placing it in a well formed by two rolls on the lower row 
whose diameter is equal to or greater than that of the roll on the 
upper row.
    (4) The rearmost roll in each upper layer must be secured by 
banding it to other rolls if it is located in either of the last two 
wells formed by the rearmost rolls in the layer below.
    (5) Rolls must be secured against lateral movement by the same 
means allowed for the bottom layer when there is more than a total of 
203 mm (8 in) of space between the ends of a paper roll, or a row of 
rolls, and the walls of the vehicle.
    (g) Paper rolls loaded with the eyes lengthwise in a sided vehicle. 
(1) Each roll must be prevented from forward movement by contact with 
vehicle structure, other cargo, blocking or tiedowns.
    (2) Each roll must be prevented from rearward movement by contact 
with other cargo, blocking, friction mats or tiedowns.
    (3) The paper rolls must be prevented from rolling or shifting 
laterally by contact with the wall of the vehicle or other cargo, or by 
chocks, wedges or blocking of adequate size.
    (4) Chocks, wedges or blocking must be held securely in place by 
some means in addition to friction, so they cannot become 
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit.
    (h) Rules for stacked loads paper rolls loaded with the eyes 
lengthwise in a sided vehicle. (1) Rolls must not be loaded in a higher 
layer if another roll will fit in the layer beneath.
    (2) An upper layer must be formed by placing paper rolls in the 
wells formed by the rolls beneath.
    (3) A roll in an upper layer must be secured against forward and 
rearward movement by any of the means allowed for the bottom layer, by 
use of a blocking roll, or by banding to other rolls.
    (i) Paper rolls loaded on a flatbed vehicle or in a curtain-sided 
vehicle--(1) Paper rolls with eyes vertical or with eyes lengthwise. 
(i) The paper rolls must be loaded and secured as described for a sided 
vehicle, and the entire load must be secured by tiedowns in accordance 
with the requirements of Secs. 393.100 through 393.120.
    (ii) Stacked loads of paper rolls with eyes vertical are 
prohibited.
    (2) Paper rolls with eyes crosswise. (i) The paper rolls must be 
prevented from rolling or shifting longitudinally by contact with 
vehicle structure or other cargo, by chocks, wedges or blocking and 
bracing of adequate size, or by tiedowns.
    (ii) Chocks, wedges or blocking must be held securely in place by 
some means in addition to friction so that they cannot become 
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit.
    (iii) Transverse or longitudinal tiedowns must be used to prevent 
lateral movement.


Sec. 393.130  What are the rules for securing concrete pipe?

    (a) Applicability. (1) The rules in this section apply to the 
transportation of concrete pipe on flatbed trailers and vehicles, and 
lowboy trailers.
    (2) Concrete pipe bundled tightly together into a single rigid 
article that has no tendency to roll, and concrete pipe loaded in a 
sided vehicle or container must be secured in accordance with the 
provisions of Secs. 393.100 through 393.120.
    (b) Aggregate working load limits for tiedowns. The aggregate 
working load limit of all tiedowns on any group of pipe must not be 
less than half the total weight of all pipe in the group.
    (c) Blocking. (1) Blocking may be one or more pieces placed 
symmetrically about the center of a pipe.
    (2) One piece must extend at least half the distance from the 
center to each end of the pipe, and two pieces must be placed on the 
opposite side, one at each end of the pipe.
    (3) Blocking must be placed firmly against the pipe, and must be 
secured to prevent it moving out from under the pipe.
    (4) Timber blocking must have minimum dimensions of at least 10  x  
15 cm (4  x  6 in).
    (d) Arranging the load--(1) Pipe of different diameter. If pipe of 
more than one diameter are loaded on a vehicle, groups must be formed 
that consist of pipe of only one size, and each group must be 
separately secured.
    (2) Arranging a bottom tier. The bottom tier must be arranged to 
cover the full length of the vehicle, or as a partial tier in one group 
or two groups.
    (3) Arranging an upper tier. Pipe must be placed only in the wells 
formed by adjacent pipes in the tier beneath. An upper tier must not be 
started unless all wells in the tier beneath are filled.
    (4) Arranging the top tier. The top tier must be arranged as a 
complete tier, a partial tier in one group, or a partial tier in two 
groups.
    (5) Arranging bell pipe. (i) Bell pipe must be loaded on at least 
two longitudinal spacers of sufficient height to ensure that the bell 
is clear of the deck.
    (ii) Bell pipe loaded in one tier must have the bells alternating 
on opposite sides of the vehicle.
    (iii) The ends of consecutive pipe must be staggered, if possible, 
within the allowable width, otherwise they must be aligned.
    (iv) Bell pipe loaded in more than one tier must have the bells of 
the bottom tier all on the same side of the vehicle.
    (v) Pipe in every upper tier must be loaded with bells on the 
opposite side of the vehicle to the bells of the tier below.
    (vi) If the second tier is not complete, pipe in the bottom tier 
which do not support a pipe above must have their bells alternating on 
opposite sides of the vehicle.
    (e) Securing pipe with an inside diameter up to 1,143 mm (45 in)--
(1) Stabilizing the bottom tier. (i) The bottom tier must be contained 
longitudinally at each end by blocking, vehicle end structure, stakes, 
a locked pipe unloader, or other equivalent means.
    (ii) Other pipe in the bottom tier may also be held in place by 
blocks and/or wedges.
    (iii) Every pipe in the bottom tier must also be held firmly in 
contact with the adjacent pipe by direct tiedowns though the front and 
rear pipes.
    (iv) The direct tiedown on the front pipe of the bottom tier must 
run aft at an angle not more than 45 degrees with the horizontal, 
whenever practicable.
    (v) The direct tiedown on the rear pipe of the bottom tier must run 
forward at an angle not more than 45 degrees with the horizontal, 
whenever practicable.
    (2) Use of tiedowns. (i) Direct tiedowns through the pipe must be 
chains.
    (ii) Longitudinal indirect tiedowns may be chain or wire rope.
    (iii) Pipe may be secured individually with a direct tiedown 
through the pipe.
    (iv) A direct tiedown through a pipe in an upper tier is considered 
to secure all those pipe beneath on which that tiedown causes pressure.
    (v) If each pipe is not secured individually with a tiedown, then:
    (A) Two indirect tiedowns must be placed longitudinally over the 
group of pipes; and
    (B) One transverse tiedown (direct or indirect) must be used for 
every 3.0 m (10 ft) of load length. The transverse tiedowns may be 
placed through a pipe, or over both longitudinal tiedowns between two 
pipes on the top tier.

[[Page 79067]]

    (vi) If the first pipe of a group in the top tier is not at the 
front of the tier beneath, it must be secured by an additional direct 
tiedown that runs rearward at an angle not more than 45 degrees to the 
horizontal, whenever practicable. This direct tiedown must pass either 
through the front pipe of the upper tier, or outside it and over both 
longitudinal indirect tiedowns.
    (vii) If the last pipe of a group in the top tier is not at the 
rear of the tier beneath, it must be secured by an additional direct 
tiedown that runs forward at an angle not more than 45 degrees to the 
horizontal, whenever practicable. This tiedown must pass either through 
the rear pipe of the upper tier or outside it and over both 
longitudinal tiedowns.
    (f) Securing large pipe, with an inside diameter over 1143 mm (45 
in). (1) The front pipe and the rear pipe must be secured by blocking 
or wedges.
    (2) The blocking or wedges must be pushed firmly under the pipe.
    (3) Each pipe must be secured by tiedowns through the pipe.
    (4) Direct tiedowns are required through each pipe in the front 
half of the load, which includes the middle one if there are an odd 
number, and must run rearward at an angle not more than 45 degrees with 
the horizontal, whenever practicable.
    (5) Direct tiedowns are required through each pipe in the rear half 
of the load, and must run forward at an angle not more than 45 degrees 
with the horizontal, whenever practicable, to hold each pipe firmly in 
contact with adjacent pipe.
    (6) If the front or rear pipe is not also in contact with vehicle 
end structure, stakes, a locked pipe unloader, or other equivalent 
means, at least two direct tiedowns must be used through that pipe.
    (g) Conditions of low friction. Ice must be removed from concrete 
pipe before it is loaded.


Sec. 393.132  What are the rules for securing intermodal containers?

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the 
transportation of intermodal containers. Cargo contained within an 
intermodal container must be secured in accordance with the provisions 
of Secs. 393.100 through 393.120 or, if applicable, the commodity 
specific rules of this part.
    (b) Rules for transporting intermodal containers on container 
chassis vehicle(s). (1) The intermodal container must be secured to the 
container chassis with securement devices or integral locking devices 
that cannot unintentionally become unfastened while the vehicle is in 
transit.
    (2) The securement devices must restrain the container from moving 
more than 1.27 cm (\1/2\ in) forward, more than 1.27 cm (\1/2\ in) aft, 
more than 1.27 cm (\1/2\ in) to the right, more than 1.27 cm (\1/2\ in) 
to the left, or more than 2.54 cm (1 in) vertically.
    (3) The front and rear of the container must be secured 
independently.
    (c) Rules for transporting intermodal containers on vehicles other 
than container chassis vehicle(s). (1) All lower corners of the 
intermodal container must rest upon the vehicle, or the corners must be 
supported by a structure capable of bearing the weight of the container 
and that support structure must be independently secured to the motor 
vehicle.
    (2) All lower corners of intermodal containers must be secured to 
the vehicle by chains, wire rope, or integral locking devices.
    (3) The front and rear of the container must be secured 
independently.
    (4) Each chain, wire rope, or integral locking device must be 
attached to the container in a manner that prevents it from being 
unintentionally unfastened while the vehicle is in transit.


Sec. 393.134  What are the rules for securing automobiles, light trucks 
and vans?

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the 
transportation of automobiles, light trucks, and vans which 
individually weigh 4,500 kg. (10,000 lb) or less. Vehicles which are 
heavier than 4,500 kg (10,000 lb) must be secured in accordance with 
the provisions of Sec. 393.136 of this part.
    (b) Automobiles, light trucks, and vans must be restrained at both 
the front and rear to prevent lateral, forward, rearward, and vertical 
movement using a minimum of two direct tiedowns.
    (c) Direct tiedowns that are designed to be affixed to the 
structure of the automobile, light truck, or van shall use the mounting 
points on those vehicles that have been specifically designed for that 
purpose.
    (d) Direct tiedowns that are designed to fit over or around the 
wheels of an automobile, light truck, or van shall provide restraint in 
the lateral, longitudinal and vertical directions.
    (e) Edge protectors are not required for synthetic webbing at 
points where the webbing comes in contact with the tires.


Sec. 393.136  What are the rules for securing heavy vehicles, equipment 
and machinery?

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the 
transportation of heavy vehicles, equipment and machinery which operate 
on wheels or tracks, such as front end loaders, bulldozers, tractors, 
and power shovels and which individually weigh 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.) or 
more. Vehicles, equipment and machinery which is lighter than 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb.) may also be secured in accordance with the provisions of 
this section, with Sec. 393.134, or in accordance with the provisions 
of Secs. 393.100 through 393.120.
    (b) Preparation of equipment being transported. (1) Accessory 
equipment, such as hydraulic shovels, must be completely lowered and 
secured to the vehicle.
    (2) The parking brake on the equipment being transported must be 
engaged, where applicable.
    (3) Articulated vehicles shall be restrained in a manner that 
prevents articulation while in transit.
    (c) Rules for transporting heavy vehicles, equipment or machinery 
with crawler tracks or wheels. (1) Heavy equipment or machinery with 
crawler tracks must be restrained against movement in the lateral, 
forward, rearward, and vertical direction using a minimum of four 
direct tiedowns.
    (2) The direct tiedown must be affixed at the front and rear of the 
vehicle, or mounting points on the vehicle that have been specifically 
designed for that purpose.


Sec. 393.138  What are the rules for securing flattened or crushed 
vehicles?

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the 
transportation of vehicles such as automobiles, light trucks, and vans 
which have been flattened or crushed.
    (b) General requirements. Flattened or crushed vehicles must be 
transported so that:
    (1) The cargo does not shift upon the transport vehicle while in 
transit; and
    (2) Loose parts from the flattened vehicles do not become dislodged 
and fall from the transport vehicle.
    (c) Prohibition on the use of synthetic webbing. The use of 
synthetic webbing to secure flattened or crushed vehicles is 
prohibited.
    (d ) Securement of flattened or crushed vehicles. Flattened or 
crushed vehicles must be transported on vehicles which have:
    (1) Containment walls or comparable means on four sides which 
extend to the full height of the load and which block against movement 
of the cargo in the forward, rearward and lateral directions; or
    (2)(i) Containment walls or comparable means on three sides which 
extend to the full height of the load and

[[Page 79068]]

which block against movement of the cargo in the forward, rearward and 
the lateral direction for which there is no containment wall or 
comparable means, and
    (ii) A minimum of two indirect tiedowns are required per vehicle 
stack; or
    (3)(i) Containment walls on two sides which extend to the full 
height of the load and which block against movement of the cargo in the 
forward and rearward directions, and
    (ii) Three indirect tiedowns are required per vehicle stack; or
    (4) A minimum of four indirect tiedowns per vehicle stack.
    (e) Containment of loose parts. (1) Measures must be taken to 
ensure that loose parts from flattened or crushed vehicles do not fall 
from the transport vehicle while in transit.
    (2) Vehicles used to transport flattened or crushed vehicles must 
be equipped with a means to prevent loose parts from falling from all 
four sides of the vehicle which extends to the full height of the 
cargo.
    (3) The means used to contain loose parts may consist of structural 
walls, sides or sideboards, or suitable covering material, alone or in 
combinations.
    (4) The use of synthetic material for containment of loose parts is 
permitted.


Sec. 393.140  What are the rules for securing roll-on/roll-off and hook 
lift containers?

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the 
transportation of roll-on/roll-off and hook lift containers.
    (b) General requirements. Any container carried on a vehicle which 
is not equipped with an integral securement system must be:
    (1) Blocked against forward movement by the lifting device, stops, 
a combination of both or other suitable restraint mechanism;
    (2) Secured to the front of the vehicle by the lifting device or 
other suitable restraint against lateral and vertical movement;
    (3) Secured to the rear of the vehicle with at least one of the 
following mechanisms:
    (i) One indirect tiedown that secures the side rails of the vehicle 
chassis to and the container chassis at the same time;
    (ii) Two tiedowns installed lengthwise, each securing one side of 
the container to one of the vehicle's side rails; or
    (iii) Two hooks, or an equivalent mechanism, securing both sides of 
the container to the vehicle chassis at least as effectively as the 
tiedowns in the two previous items.
    (4) The mechanisms used to secure the rear end of a roll-on/roll 
off or hook lift container must be installed no more than two meters (6 
ft 7 in) from the rear of the container.
    (5) In the event that one or more of the front stops or lifting 
devices are missing, damaged or not compatible, additional manually 
installed tiedowns must be used to secure the container to the vehicle, 
providing the same level of securement as the missing, damaged or 
incompatible components.


Sec. 393.142  What are the rules for securing large boulders?

    (a) Applicability. (1) The rules in this section are applicable to 
the transportation of any large piece of natural, irregularly shaped 
rock weighing in excess of 5,000 kg (11,000 lb.) or with a volume in 
excess of 2 cubic-meters on an open vehicle, or in a vehicle whose 
sides are not designed and rated to contain such cargo.
    (2) Pieces of rock weighing more than 100 kg (220 lb.), but less 
than 5,000 kg (11,000 lb.) must be secured, either in accordance with 
this section, or in accordance with the provisions of Secs. 393.100 
through 393.120, including:
    (i) Rock contained within a vehicle which is designed to carry such 
cargo; or
    (ii) Secured individually by tiedowns, provided each piece can be 
stabilized and adequately secured.
    (3) Rock which has been formed or cut to a shape and which provides 
a stable base for securement must also be secured, either in accordance 
with the provisions of this section, or in accordance with the 
provisions of Secs. 393.100 through 393.120.
    (b) Rules concerning positioning of boulders on the vehicle. (1) 
Each boulder must be placed with its flattest and/or largest side down.
    (2) Each boulder must be supported on at least two pieces of hard 
wood blocking at least 10 cm  x  10 cm (4 inches  x  4 inches) side 
dimensions extending the full width of the boulder.
    (3) Hardwood blocking pieces must be placed as symmetrically as 
possible under the boulder and should support at least three-fourths of 
the length of the boulder.
    (4) If the flattest side of a boulder is rounded or partially 
rounded, so that the boulder may roll, it must be placed in a crib made 
of hardwood timber fixed to the deck of the vehicle so that the boulder 
rests on both the deck and the timber, with at least three well-
separated points of contact that prevent its tendency to roll in any 
direction.
    (5) If a boulder is tapered, the narrowest end must point towards 
the front of the vehicle.
    (c) Rules concerning the use of tiedowns. (1) Only chain may be 
used as tiedowns to secure large boulders.
    (2) Indirect tiedowns which are in direct contact with the boulder 
should, where possible, be located in valleys or notches across the top 
of the boulder, and must be arranged to prevent sliding across the rock 
surface.
    (d) Options for arranging tiedowns. There are three arrangements of 
tiedowns that may be used, depending upon the shape of the boulder:
    (1) Cubic shaped boulder. (i) The boulder must be secured 
individually with at least two chain tiedowns placed transversely 
across the vehicle.
    (ii) The aggregate working load limit of the tiedowns must be at 
least half the weight of the boulder.
    (iii) The tiedowns must be placed as closely as possible to the 
wood blocking used to support the boulder.
    (2) Irregular shaped boulder--with stable base. (i) The boulder 
must be secured individually with at least two chain tiedowns forming 
an ``X'' pattern over the boulder.
    (ii) The aggregate working load limit of the tiedowns must be at 
least half the weight of the boulder.
    (iii) The tiedowns must pass over the center of the boulder and 
must be attached to each other at the intersection by a shackle or 
other connecting device.
    (3) Irregular shaped boulder--with unstable base. Each boulder must 
be secured by a combination of chain tiedowns as follows:
    (i) One chain must surround the top of the boulder (at a point 
between one-half and two-thirds of its height). The working load limit 
of the chain must be at least half the weight of the boulder.
    (ii) Four chains must be attached to the surrounding chain and the 
vehicle to form a blocking mechanism which prevents any horizontal 
movement. Each chain must have a working load limit of at least one-
fourth the weight of the boulder. Whenever practicable, the angle of 
the chains must not exceed 45 degrees from the horizontal.

    Issued on: December 8, 2000.
Brian M. McLaughlin,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-31919 Filed 12-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P