[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61212-61235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23693]



[[Page 61211]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 392 and 393



Development of a North American Standard for Protection Against 
Shifting and Falling Cargo; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 61212]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA revises its regulations concerning protection 
against shifting and falling cargo for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) 
engaged in interstate commerce. The new cargo securement standards are 
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. The new rules 
require motor carriers to change the way they use cargo securement 
devices to prevent articles from shifting on or within, or falling 
from, CMVs. In some instances, the changes may require motor carriers 
to increase the number of tiedowns used to secure certain types of 
cargoes. However, the rule generally does not prohibit the use of 
tiedowns or cargo securement devices currently in use. Therefore, motor 
carriers are not required to purchase new cargo securement equipment to 
comply with the rule. 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: The rule is effective December 26, 2002. Motor carriers must 
ensure compliance with the final rule by January 1, 2004. The 
publications incorporated by reference in this final rule are approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 26, 2002.

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, DC 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 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 from 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. The cargo securement issues that were 
to be examined through the research program and the selected research 
methodology are described in a report 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.
    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. A copy of the research reports 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.ab.org/ccmta/ccmta.html.
    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

[[Page 61213]]

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 that 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 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 (61 FR 54142), the FHWA published an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the development of the 
North American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulations. 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.
    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.

Publication of NPRM

    On December 18, 2000, the agency published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) to adopt rules based on the North American Cargo 
Securement Standard Model Regulations (65 FR 79050). The NPRM requested 
comments on all aspects of the rulemaking.

Discussion of Comments to the NPRM

    The agency received 102 comments in response to the NPRM. The 
commenters included individuals concerned about highway safety, truck 
drivers, motor carriers, motor carrier associations, manufacturers and 
shippers of products transported on trucks, truck trailer 
manufacturers, manufacturers of devices used to secure articles of 
cargo on commercial motor vehicles and several associations 
representing such manufacturers, and safety advocacy groups.
    Generally, the majority of the commenters supported the concept of 
adopting the North American Cargo Securement Standard Model 
Regulations. However, almost all of the commenters suggested revisions 
of some of the requirements to make the proposed rule more consistent 
with the model regulations, and to improve the clarity of the 
requirements. A number of the commenters had objections to certain 
provisions of the model regulations that were proposed for adoption, 
suggesting that their concerns were not adequately addressed during the 
public meeting process used for developing the model regulations. The 
major issues are addressed below.

Applicability of Cargo Securement Rules

    Several commenters expressed concerns about the applicability of 
the cargo securement rules to commercial motor vehicles with a gross 
vehicle weight less than 26,000 pounds. The National Association of 
Trailer Manufacturers stated:

    Our association is dedicated to promoting safety in trailers 
under 26,000 lbs GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating]. We focus on 
that segment of the trailer industry. We have observed repeatedly 
that regulations are written based on experiences of tractor-trailer 
rigs--the big ones--all over 26,000 lbs GVWR--and then are 
automatically applied to the much smaller and much different 
trailers.
    We respectfully submit that the major differences of frame 
structure, platform height, axle placements and towing methods are 
significant and they do affect handling, loading, and safety 
characteristics of these trailers.
    Therefore, our general concern and fear is that regulations are 
developed and applied to our segment of the industry without 
considering their real needs, designs and ultimate impact on 
manufacturing costs.
    We suggest that the rulemaking in this case of cargo securement 
be applied only to those trailers (over 26,000 lbs GVWR) where they 
are needed.

    United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS ) also believes that there is 
insufficient data concerning the securement of cargo transported in 
vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,001 pounds but substantially less 
than 26,001 pounds, the weight typically associated with a heavy 
vehicle. UPS does not believe that FMCSA has investigated the 
mechanical differences between such vehicles and heavy trucks, and 
argues that the agency has made no effort to determine the propriety of 
applying performance criteria and other standards developed for flatbed 
and other heavy trucks to UPS package cars, trailers, or other similar 
vehicles designed for the

[[Page 61214]]

handling of smaller package-type cargo within completely contained 
CMVs.
    The Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) expressed concern about 
whether the rules would be applicable to the transportation of 
manufactured homes. MHI stated that various types of materials and 
supplies are shipped within the transportable sections of manufactured 
homes from the point of manufacture to the retailer and/or home site, 
where installation crews set up the homes. The materials and supplies 
are used to complete the home and include carpeting, vinyl siding, 
roofing materials, and interior wall and ceiling materials. MHI also 
stated that the materials and supplies are spread out over several 
rooms, and often placed within closets, utility rooms, and/or other 
confined spaces within each transportable section of manufactured 
housing. MHI requested that manufactured homes be excluded from the 
applicability of the cargo securement rules.

FMCSA Response

    The FMCSA believes the applicability of the new cargo securement 
rules should be consistent with the applicability of the current cargo 
securement regulations. The agency's cargo securement rules have 
historically been applicable to the full range of cargo-carrying 
commercial vehicles subject to the FMCSRs since the safety regulations 
were first issued more than 60 years ago. The new rules should also be 
applicable to all cargo-carrying, commercial motor vehicles (as defined 
in 49 CFR 390.5). None of the commenters have presented information to 
support making a distinction between the general applicability of the 
FMCSRs, and the applicability of the cargo securement rules. There is 
no readily apparent reason why any particular class or category of 
cargo-carrying vehicle subject to the FMCSRs, should be excepted from 
basic requirements to ensure that the cargo is secured to prevent it 
from falling from the vehicle, or shifting to the extent that the 
vehicle's stability or maneuverability is adversely affected.
    We agree with commenters' assertions that there are differences in 
frame structure, platform height, axle placements and towing methods. 
However, there is no data to suggest that differences in the design of 
the commercial motor vehicle, or the manner in which it is towed (e.g., 
a fifth wheel coupling device for truck trailers, versus a ball-and-
socket arrangement for small trailers) negate the need for ensuring 
that cargo is properly secured to prevent accidents. The agency does 
not believe that the rules being adopted represent a one-size-fits-all 
approach to ensuring safety. The rules are performance-based to the 
greatest extent practicable resulting in requirements that increase 
with the size of the articles of cargo, or the complexity of the load 
securement system necessary to ensure that the articles are properly 
secured.
    With regard to MHI's concerns about the rules being applicable to 
manufactured homes, transporters of the homes would comply by ensuring 
that materials and supplies used to complete the home, are positioned 
so that they cannot shift around inside the home while it is being 
towed to its installation site. Placing the items within closets and 
utility rooms or other confined spaces generally would satisfy the new 
requirements under Sec.  393.102.

Relationship Between FMCSA's and RSPA's Cargo Securement Rules

    The Georgia Public Service Commission (Georgia PSC) recommended 
that FMCSA should reference provisions of the Research and Special 
Programs Administration's (RSPA) load securement rules for hazardous 
materials transported by highway [Subpart B of 49 CFR part 177]. 
Georgia PSC indicated that the hazardous materials regulations do not 
contain load securement requirements for Class 9 materials and 
combustible liquids. These materials may be transported in non-
specification packaging (i.e., packaging that is not required to meet 
RSPA performance standards). In addition, the transportation of limited 
quantities is not specifically covered by load securement provision of 
the hazardous materials regulations.

FMCSA Response

    The FMCSA does not believe it is necessary to include a reference 
to the hazardous materials regulations. The cargo securement rules 
being adopted are applicable to any articles of cargo being transported 
in or on a commercial motor vehicle, regardless of whether the 
transportation of the articles is subject to the hazardous materials 
regulations. The agency has contacted RSPA to discuss this matter does 
not believe the hazardous materials rules prevent motor carriers from 
complying with the FMCSA's cargo securement rules, or vice versa. The 
FMCSA's and RSPA's rules are complementary and motor carriers 
transporting hazardous materials must ensure compliance with both 
agencies' rules, whenever applicable.

Performance Criteria for Cargo Securement Systems

    International Paper Company was among the numerous commenters that 
expressed concerns about the proposed minimum performance criteria for 
cargo securement devices and systems. International does not believe 
the deceleration values can be achieved under actual test conditions 
with loaded vehicles. They believe the values were based on 
researchers' analysis rather than the results of actual vehicle tests. 
International believes that minimum performance criteria of 0.6g 
forward, 0.35g lateral and 0.25g rearward have been proven in real-
world testing and should be adopted.
    The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA), however, believes 
the proposed performance criteria are appropriate. The ATA stated:

    For many years a 0.6g deceleration was the best that could be 
attained. However, today's truck tires and brakes are more capable 
than ever before. In discussions with tire, brake and vehicle 
manufacturers there was agreement that the g forces defined in the 
proposal are now achievable. While these forces will rarely reach 
the 0.8g forward, 0.5g rearward and 0.5g lateral values, they can be 
achieved and so should be expected under certain non-crash 
conditions. Therefore we accept the new values.

    The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) believes the 
performance criteria are inadequate. Advocates stated:

    These proposed limits accord with recognized commercial vehicle 
operating tolerances for deceleration and acceleration generally 
without a driver losing control of a truck and subsequently rolling 
over, yawing, or jackknifing. However, they do not entail a severe 
demand on cargo securement in severe maneuvers or in minor crashes 
involving forces exceeding these ceilings.
    The FMCSA states in this proposed rule that it will not adopt 
performance standards ensuring that cargo is retained on or in the 
commercial vehicle in collisions, rollovers, or trailer detachments. 
Id. It is noteworthy that, although the agency asserts that 
``shifting or falling cargo is a contributing factor in less than 
one percent of the accidents self-reported by motor carriers,'' it 
only states without corroborating figures that ``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.'' Id. At 
79053, 79054. The FMCSA cannot fulfill its obligation to provide a 
documented administrative record in this rulemaking by making this 
kind of summary dismissal of the crash consequences of dislodged 
cargo. Many anecdotal reports, including newspaper accounts, of 
crashes involving deaths and injuries as a result of cargo 
detachment have been made over the

[[Page 61215]]

years which verify that some of these losses occurred from the 
separation of freight from commercial motor vehicles as the result 
of severe maneuvers resulting in a collision with other vehicles, 
impacts with fixed object hazards, or rollovers. Advocates continues 
to believe that the agency has an obligation to establish standards 
which ensure the crashworthiness of cargo securement methods in most 
collisions or rollovers.

FMCSA Response

    The FMCSA believes the proposed performance criteria are 
appropriate for adoption in the final rule. The agency agrees with the 
ATA that commercial motor vehicles are now capable of achieving the 
types of accelerations and decelerations that are being adopted as 
performance criteria. While it is true that not every commercial motor 
vehicle on the road today is capable of achieving such levels of 
performance, there is no practical way to ensure that all loads are 
adequately secured unless the rule includes performance criteria that 
reflect the latest developments in vehicle design. Neither motor 
carriers nor enforcement officials will be able to determine vehicle 
performance capabilities. Therefore, rather than adopt a rule with 
multiple sets of performance standards to cover a variety of vehicle 
types and configurations, the agency is adopting a single set of 
performance standards that would ensure that all loads are properly 
secured, regardless of the stopping capability or maneuverability of 
the vehicle.
    The FMCSA disagrees with the Advocates' argument about the need for 
ensuring crashworthiness of cargo securement systems. FMCSA finds that 
there is no evidence that a significant number of secondary injuries or 
fatalities are caused by cargo thrown from a CMV after a collision. We 
recognize that there are anecdotal reports and newspaper accounts of 
crashes involving deaths and injuries as a result of cargo separating 
from a commercial motor vehicle after a collision with fixed objects or 
rollovers. However, a rulemaking to establish crashworthiness standards 
requires much more justification than anecdotal reports and newspaper 
articles.
    The agency would have to identify the types of collisions or 
rollovers the rulemaking would address, the forces most likely to act 
on the articles of cargo during these collisions and rollovers, and the 
type of cargo securement systems necessary to prevent the cargo from 
separating from the vehicle. The effort required to undertake such a 
rulemaking would be costly and require a substantial amount of time to 
complete crash testing necessary to demonstrate the adequacy of the 
securement systems for the various scenarios. To undertake such a 
program with nothing more than anecdotal information as the 
justification would be inappropriate.
    We continue to believe that there is no practical way to ensure 
that all loads are secured to prevent separation from the vehicle after 
there is a collision or rollover. The more practical approach for 
ensuring highway safety is to focus on crash avoidance-type cargo 
securement rules, rather than crashworthiness cargo securement 
standards.

Securement of Articles of Cargo in Van-Type Trailers

    Numerous commenters expressed concerns about the applicability of 
the proposed rules to articles of cargo transported in van-type 
trailers. The American Forest and Paper Association stated:

    The [preamble to the NPRM] states, ``* * *. 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.'' We believe 
that this is a factual statement, however, it can be misleading. 
There are many loads that can be safely transported in a van type 
vehicle, using correct loading patterns, that require no additional 
forms of securement that meet the G-force requirements, excepting 
the rearward requirement which is overly restrictive. The loads that 
can be loaded, such that they prevent movement to the extent that 
affects the vehicle's stability and will not fall off of or out of 
the vehicle, are safe.

    Weyerhaeuser stated:

    [T]he sections of the proposed standard that cover general cargo 
(Sec.  393.100 through 393.120) are confusing and far removed from 
the principles of the Model Regulation. These sections appear to 
require tiedowns for cargo transported in sided vehicles at all 
times. Cargo that will not fall from or out of a vehicle and cargo 
that will not shift to the extent that the vehicle's stability is 
adversely affected should not be subject to the requirements 
concerning tiedowns or other additional securement. The confusion in 
these proposed rules could lead to needless litigation based on the 
confusion and misinterpretation of the rules by shippers, carriers 
and enforcement agencies.

FMCSA Response

    The FMCSA agrees with commenters that there are many loads that can 
be safely transported in a van type vehicle, using correct loading 
patterns, without any additional forms of securement. The agency never 
intended that the cargo securement rules require tiedowns on all 
articles of cargo transported in van-type trailers, regardless of the 
type of cargo and loading arrangement. We have made revisions to the 
proposed language in response to the commenters to improve the clarity 
of the rule, and to make the final rule more consistent with the model 
regulations. The new regulatory language in Sec.  393.106 will ensure a 
performance-based approach to securing articles of cargo in van-type 
trailers.

Making a Distinction Between Direct and Indirect Tiedowns

    Many of commenters indicated that the proposed distinction between 
direct and indirect tiedowns would cause confusion if adopted in the 
final rule. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance stated:

    It is evident to the [CVSA] that, while there is a sound 
technical basis for drawing the distinction, there are grave 
concerns with [the] prospect of introducing this concept in 
regulation. There is a great deal of confusion with the distinction, 
in spite of the definitions included in the NPRM. Of particular 
concern is the prospect of ensuring that the calculation of 
aggregate working load limit of securement systems is carried out 
easily and consistently by carriers and enforcement officials.

    Advocates stated:

    [We] cannot conclusively distinguish between direct and indirect 
tiedowns, nor between exactly which parts of a direct tiedown are 
governed by one-half its working load or by its full working load. 
Although we can envision an indirect tiedown whose character appears 
to apply essentially constraining vertical forces on a piece of 
cargo against the floor of the vehicle, it is far less clear when a 
tiedown can or cannot be regarded as a ``direct'' tiedown or which 
parts are governed by full working load limits and which by one-half 
working load limits. Advocates is convinced that many carriers and 
drivers will fail to understand the distinctions drawn by the agency 
concerning tiedowns and will inappropriately judge a tiedown as 
``direct'' when in fact it is an indirect tiedown, or will misjudge 
the working load limits applying to the different parts of a direct 
tiedown, resulting in securement which does not meet the standard 
and poses an unacceptable safety risk of dislodgement. As a result, 
the calculations which the agency wants carriers to apply in judging 
whether the requirements of the proposed regulation have been met, 
will be uncertain and often mistaken. The FMCSA needs to evaluate 
its descriptions of the different species of tiedowns and perhaps 
provide clearer text accompanied by illustrative examples of the 
most common ways in which tiedowns are direct and indirect, and 
provide guidance on how carriers and drivers can distinguish between 
the different parts of direct tiedowns with respect to working load 
limits.

FMCSA Response

    The FMCSA agrees with the commenters concerns about making the

[[Page 61216]]

distinction between direct and indirect tiedowns. While there may be 
safety benefits to adopting a final rule that makes such a distinction, 
there are also safety risks associated with motor carriers, drivers, 
and enforcement officials not fully understanding the difference 
between the two types of tiedowns, and underestimating the aggregate 
working load limit necessary to prevent the shifting or falling of 
cargo. The current requirement that the aggregate working load limit of 
any securement systems used to restrain an article or group of articles 
be at least one-half times the weight of the article will remain in 
place. However, the new rule explains in greater detail how the working 
load limits of the individual tiedown devices are added together to 
determine the aggregate working load limit, and to account for each 
associated connector or attachment mechanism, and for each section of a 
tiedown that is attached to an anchor point.

Marking and Rating of Tiedowns and Anchor Points

    Mr. John R. Billing, one of the members of the group that drafted 
the model regulations, commented on the agency's decision not to 
prohibit the use of unmarked tiedowns at this time. Mr. Billing stated:

    One of the objectives of the standard is to ensure that 
shippers, carriers and drivers use the proper tools and techniques 
to secure cargo. When it comes to heavy specialized loads, like 
logs, metal coils, billets or plate, concrete pipe, and others, 
there should be no room for doubt about the capacity of the tools or 
the reliability of the techniques. Most carriers who move such 
commodities on a daily basis [use] marked tiedowns and trailers 
designed for the loads they carry. Prohibiting use of unmarked 
tiedowns will not affect them. It will affect the driver who tries 
to take such a load, and has neither the experience nor the proper 
equipment. An objective of the standard is to try to prevent the 
inexperienced and under-equipped from doing things they should not 
be attempting.

    On the subject of trailer anchor points, Mr. Billing stated:

    This issue is really the same issue as allowing use of unmarked 
chain. If a trailer will carry a serious load, secured by marked 
chain of serious capacity, then the anchor points need to be strong 
enough to resist the loads that the chain will apply to them.

    The ATA indicated that it agrees with the concept of having 
unmarked tiedowns considered as having a working load limit equal to 
the lowest rating for their type of material, as listed in the table of 
working load limits included in the rule. The ATA stated:

    Ultimately, when all manufacturers mark their products with 
their working load limit it will be possible to prohibit unmarked 
tiedown devices. The possibility of doing this will arise several 
years after the proposed rule goes into effect and manufacturers and 
consumers realize the benefits of making and using marked products.

    Keen Transport, Inc. expressed concern about the potential impact 
the rules would have on motor carriers if FMCSA prohibited the use of 
unmarked tiedowns and required rating and marking of anchor points on 
CMVs.

FMCSA Response

    We agree with the principle that it is important to ensure that 
shippers, carriers and drivers use the proper tools and techniques to 
secure cargo. However, safety-conscious motor carriers and drivers 
could achieve compliance with the rules being adopted, and make wise 
choices about cargo securement devices, without the mandatory marking 
and labeling of tiedowns and anchor points.
    We acknowledge that if unmarked tiedowns of varying grades are 
readily available, motor carriers could unknowingly violate the current 
rule and the new 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. While the risks of such an accident 
could be greatly minimized by prohibiting motor carriers from using 
unmarked tiedowns, there is insufficient information to support such a 
requirement at this time.
    We continue to believe that before initiating a rulemaking to 
prohibit the use of unmarked/unrated cargo securement devices, we 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 we have 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. None of the commenters favoring a prohibition on unmarked 
tiedowns provided information to support the need for such a 
rulemaking.
    With regard to the specific issue of anchor points on semitrailers 
and trailers, we continue to believe that it is not appropriate to 
establish such requirements at this time. Although the Truck Trailer 
Manufacturers Association (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 
still does not have any information on the extent to which trailer 
manufacturers follow these recommendations. If we determine that a 
significant percentage of manufacturers follow the recommended 
practices, the agency will consider a rulemaking to incorporate by 
reference the TTMA's recommended practice. The requirement would then 
apply to trailers manufactured on or after the effective date of the 
final rule. We are taking this cautious approach because we must be 
certain that newly manufactured trailers satisfy 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 appear to 
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. Therefore, we continue to believe that 
our focus should remain on the actual tiedowns and the way motor 
carriers use such devices to secure articles of cargo, rather than on 
vehicle-based anchor points.

Responsibilities for Securement of the Contents of Intermodal 
Containers

    A number of commenters discussed the difficulties that motor 
carriers would have if the cargo securement rules required the motor 
carrier to ensure that the contents of the intermodal container were 
properly secured, regardless of the entity that loaded the container. 
The ATA stated:

    It is illegal for a motor carrier or driver to tamper with a 
seal on an intermodal cargo container that has not been cleared by 
the United States Customs [Service]. Many motor carriers are Customs 
bonded to receive containers of cargo that have not yet been 
approved by agents of the U.S. Customs [Service]. Customs-bonded 
motor carriers are responsible for:
    [sbull] Affixing the red Customs warning cards at the access 
points of conveyances (typically vehicle, including intermodal 
container, doors) (the red cards are in addition to the existing 
seal(s)); and
    [sbull] Assuring the integrity of the seal and the ``sanitary'' 
condition of the cargo until

[[Page 61217]]

Customs clears its status for delivery to the consignee.
    It is not uncommon for intermodal containers of Customs bonded 
cargo to either travel hundreds of miles or be stored in the motor 
carrier's secured facilities before being cleared by Customs. During 
this period, any removal or tampering with the seal(s) or cards 
violates U.S. Customs regulations and is punishable by two years 
imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine. Customs regulations do not permit 
breaking seals to double-check the loading party's work. The only 
regulatory exception is in the case of ``* * * a real emergency.''

    The United States Maritime Alliance Limited and the Carriers 
Container Council, Inc. jointly submitted comments. They stated:

    While the proposed regulations recognize that commercial motor 
vehicle (``CMV'') drivers do not have the ability to inspect sealed 
containers, it fails to recognize that similarly ocean carriers and 
marine terminal operators are not able to inspect cargo transported 
in sealed containers. This is a significant omission because it 
indicates that the drafters are not considering a global view of 
intermodal transportation but instead are taking a narrow view of 
the system. Moreover, the exemption for CMV drivers provided under 
Sec.  392.9(b)(4) could be viewed as placing a burden on ocean 
carriers or marine terminal operators to perform these inspections 
prior to tendering the container to a motor carrier. The proposed 
regulations are deficient in providing the same type of unequivocal 
exemption for ocean carriers and marine terminal operators.

    Advocates believes it is inappropriate to exempt drivers from 
inspecting the cargo securement of freight carried in sealed 
containers, freight which the driver is not allowed to inspect, or 
freight ``loaded in a manner that makes inspection of the cargo 
impracticable.'' 65 FR 79055. Advocates stated:
    These exemptions will easily become major loopholes for 
consignors, brokers, freight forwarders, and motor carriers which 
will undoubtedly be exploited especially for legal defense of suits 
resulting from crashes with deaths, injuries, and property damage 
losses as the direct result of dislodged cargo. The provision 
provides ample opportunities for the different parties in the supply 
chain to attempt to shift burdens of responsibility for cargo 
securement and any subsequent failures.

FMCSA Response

    The FMCSA recognizes the concerns commenters have about the 
inspection of cargo in intermodal containers. However, the new cargo 
securement rules would place no greater responsibility on motor 
carriers and drivers than the current rules. Neither the current rules 
nor the rules being adopted today include a requirement that drivers 
inspect all loads in intermodal containers. Drivers are only required 
to inspect loads when practicable. If the driver has the opportunity to 
check the securement of the load (for example, the driver is present 
while the container is being loaded) then there is no readily apparent 
reason why the motor carrier and driver should not be held accountable 
for the securement of the load. On the other hand, if there was no 
practicable opportunity to inspect the cargo securement system because 
the container was sealed by the shipper with strict instructions to the 
carrier not to open the container, then the exception under Sec.  
392.9(b)(4) would be applicable, and the driver would not be required 
to inspect the cargo securement system.
    The FMCSA encourages U.S-based motor carriers to work with domestic 
and international shippers to ensure that loads are properly secured. 
Regardless of whether the FMCSRs are applicable to shippers, they have 
a role in ensuring highway safety when they load containers for 
transport on the highway, and seal the containers, for whatever reason.

Periodic Inspection of Cargo Securement Systems by Driver

    The California Trucking Association (CTA) recommends that the 
requirement for drivers to stop and inspect the articles of cargo and 
the securement devices be revised to be product-specific. The CTA 
believes that each motor carrier should develop a policy to govern load 
securement and inspection procedures based on their knowledge and 
expertise in transporting various commodities. The written policy would 
then be made available to enforcement personnel during a compliance 
review.
    The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) opposed increasing 
the mileage at which a driver must inspect the load after beginning a 
trip from 25 miles to 50 miles. MDOT indicated that there have been a 
number of incidents where the load came loose and caused traffic tie-
ups and in some cases collisions which have resulted in serious injury 
or death.
    Mr. Gary Volkman disagreed with the requirement for en route 
inspections of the cargo securement system. Mr. Volkman stated:

    Consider that currently the hazardous materials regulations 
already have a rule that every 2 hours or 100 miles the driver of a 
placarded load must stop and do a tire check. Why would we confuse 
the issues in a different regulation that will require the driver to 
stop in the first 50 miles and conduct a tie down inspection? As a 
dry van carrier it is entirely feasible that we may have a situation 
wherein we provide transportation for a partial load of metal coils 
(eye vertical) and hazardous materials that require placards. Which 
rule should we follow? Or, would we stop every 50 miles for the 
entire trip?

FMCSA Response

    The FMCSA disagrees with the commenters' views about the periodic 
inspection of the cargo securement system. We continue to believe that 
it is necessary for drivers to inspect cargo securement systems because 
the amount of tension in the tiedowns assemblies may decrease 
significantly after the driver begins operating the vehicle. Vibrations 
may cause the articles of cargo to shift slightly such that the 
tiedowns need to be readjusted to ensure that the articles do not fall 
from the vehicle, or shift to the extent that the vehicle's stability 
is adversely affected. We do not have sufficient information to develop 
a periodic inspection standard that is commodity-specific as one 
commenter suggested, but there is sufficient basis for retaining a 
general rule for all drivers to periodically check the condition of the 
cargo securement system.
    With regard to comments about the frequency of periodic 
inspections, we recognize the differences between the minimum 
requirements for checking the condition of the cargo securement system, 
and checking the tires in accordance with Sec.  397.17. The 
differences, however, do not prevent drivers and motor carriers from 
complying with either the cargo securement rules, or the tire 
inspection rule.
    On July 16, 2002 (67 FR 46624), the agency proposed eliminating the 
requirement for periodic tire checks. The agency proposed that tires be 
checked at the beginning of each trip and each time the vehicle is 
parked. If the proposal is adopted as a final rule, the differences 
between the inspection intervals would be a moot issue.
    With regard to checking the cargo securement system, we are 
providing drivers with three options: whenever the driver makes a 
change in the duty status; or after the vehicle has been driven for 3 
hours; or after the vehicle has been driven for 150 miles, whichever 
occurs first. Pending the completion of the rulemaking cited above, 
Sec.  397.17 currently requires drivers of motor vehicles transporting 
hazardous material, and equipped with dual tires on any axle, to stop 
the vehicle at least once every 2 hours or 100 miles of travel, 
whichever occurs first, to inspect the tires. It is clear that Sec.  
397.17 requires more frequent stops to ensure the proper operating 
condition of

[[Page 61218]]

the tires. It is also clear that stopping more frequently than the 
intervals prescribed by Sec.  392.9 is not prohibited. Therefore, for 
drivers transporting hazardous materials, compliance with Sec. Sec.  
392.9 and 397.17 could be achieved by simply following the intervals 
specified in Sec.  397.17. We do not believe it is necessary that both 
rules use the same intervals.
    In response to MDOT, the proposal to change the initial en route 
inspection from 25 miles to 50 miles is based on the model regulation 
developed by the harmonization committee and discussed in the public 
meetings described above. Given the extensive knowledge and experience 
of the government and industry representatives, we believe it is 
appropriate to adopt the 50-mile criterion. In doing so, we are 
allowing drivers the flexibility to perform the initial en route 
inspection within the first 25 miles after beginning a trip, or if the 
driver believes it is more appropriate based on the nature of the 
articles of cargo and the condition of the roads, to inspect the cargo 
within the first 50 miles after beginning a trip. We are not aware of 
any data or information that would suggest that allowing up to 25 
additional miles for the first en route inspection would reduce the 
level of safety of operation of commercial motor vehicles.

Special Rule for Special Purpose Vehicles

    Silk Road Transport indicated that the current cargo securement 
rules provide an option for achieving proper securement by means other 
than those specified in the rules. Silk Road Transport believes 
proposed rules should be revised to include the same level of 
flexibility for unique cargo such as railcars, airplane wings, and 
other unique cargo.

FMCSA Response

    We agree with Silk Road Transport's comments. The final rule 
retains what is currently codified under Sec.  393.100(d), the special 
rule for special-purpose vehicles, in Sec.  393.110(e).
    We have always understood that there are articles of cargo that 
require special means of loading onto commercial motor vehicles and 
recognized that the general cargo securement rules may not be 
appropriate when applied to the securement systems used for these 
articles. In many cases, if the general rules are applied to these 
loads, the articles of cargo may be damaged during transport to the 
extent that they could no longer be used for their intended purposes. 
Motor carriers are capable of ensuring that specialty articles, such as 
those described by Silk Road Transport, are adequately secured in a 
manner consistent with the performance requirements of this rule, 
without being subjected to detailed rules that could result in damage 
to the cargo. The rules have allowed motor carriers flexibility for 
special-purpose vehicles for many years and there is no readily 
apparent reason to believe that the safety of operation of commercial 
motor vehicles would be reduced if we continue to allow the flexibility 
for special-purpose vehicles.

National Association of Chain Manufacturers' (NACM) Publication

    The ATA believes the NACM is inconsistent in its use of safety 
factors. The ATA indicated that grade 4 chain has a safety factor of 3 
(the ratio of the breaking strength to the working load limit is 3) but 
grades 7, 8, and 10 have a safety factor of 4. The ATA stated:

    Past regulatory practice and industry experience show that, 
employed in conjunction with the stipulations in the FMCSRs, a 
safety factor of 3 is appropriate for chain that is used to secure 
cargo. Currently Grade 4 chain and webbing both use a safety factor 
of 3. So, the assumption made to ensure that changing from a rule 
based on static breaking strength to one based on working load limit 
would not require more tie-downs, succeeded for them. However, as 
noted, NACM assigns chain grades 7, 8, and 10 a safety factor of 4. 
Hence these products are now penalized in that they can not be 
employed as they were prior to 1993, when all chain used for load 
securement was selected on the basis of its static breaking 
strength.

    The ATA recommends that all load securement chain be assigned a 
safety factor of three.
    The ATA believes this would keep the rule from being overly 
conservative and avoid penalizing motor carriers for using a superior 
product.
    The Specialized Carriers and Rigging Association (SC&RA) also 
expressed concerns about the NACM's safety factors. SC&RA indicated 
that it joined the ATA in requesting the NACM change to a cargo 
securement safety factor of 3, but the NACM rejected the request for 
fear of confusion caused by having one safety factor for loading and 
another for lifting.

FMCSA Response

    The FMCSA appreciates the concerns commenters expressed about 
NACM's safety factors for determining working load limits for various 
grades of chain. However, the agency does not believe this rulemaking 
is the forum for resolving the issue.
    The agency first adopted the use of working load limits on July 6, 
1994 (59 FR 34712). The final rule incorporated by reference the NACM's 
specifications. There appeared to be support for relying on the NACM's 
expertise in establishing minimum working load limits for chain that 
meets the association's manufacturing specifications. There is no 
indication from the commenters that the technical expertise represented 
by the association's publication is any less credible than it was in 
1994.
    We believe it is appropriate to defer judgment about working load 
limits for chains to reputable chain manufacturers and their 
association. While the NACM's rationale for using different safety 
factors for different grades of chain is not entirely clear, the level 
of knowledge and expertise represented by the association is such that 
the agency would rather adopt their working load limits, even if they 
may appear to be overly conservative. There is no indication that 
adopting the NACM's most recent working load limits would have an 
adverse impact on safety, or result in unnecessarily burdensome 
requirements when incorporated by reference.
    The agency encourages all interested parties to continue dialogue 
with the NACM to achieve a common understanding of the working load 
limits necessary for ensuring highway safety. If the dialogue results 
in the NACM revising its safety factors, the FMCSA will consider 
incorporating by reference the new NACM publication.

Logs

    Several commenters specializing in the transportation of logs 
expressed concern that the proposed applicability statement for the 
rules concerning the securement of logs was inconsistent with the model 
regulations. The commenters also identified regulatory language in the 
applicability paragraph that was no longer necessary if the agency made 
the requirements more consistent with the model regulation. 
Specifically, the commenters indicated that the applicability paragraph 
in the model regulations included an exception for logs that are 
unitized by banding or other comparable means. However, the agency's 
proposal would have imposed the requirements on banded loads rather 
than to allow them to be transported under the general rules for 
securement.
    The commenters indicated that the statement about the rules 
applying to ``all other logs'' and the sentence explaining that a load 
comprised of shortwood and longwood must be treated as shortwood were 
unnecessary.

[[Page 61219]]

FMCSA Response

    The FMCSA agrees with the commenters. After carefully reviewing the 
model regulations, the agency recognizes the inconsistency between its 
NPRM and the model standards. The regulatory language for the final 
rule has been revised accordingly.

Concrete Pipe

    The SC&RA and the American Concrete Pipe Association (ACPA) 
expressed concern about the proposed requirement that two longitudinal 
cables (running from the front of the trailer to the rear of the 
trailer) be used on certain loads of concrete pipe. The SCRA stated:

    Current practices within the industry have proven to be safe and 
effective for the last 45 years. These practices typically include a 
single 2 speed winch mounted to a heavy duty stand in the front of 
the trailer. On the winch a [\1/2\-inch] cable goes over the load 
and attaches to the bed of the rear of the trailer. After the cable 
is in place over the load and tightened, the low gear side of the 
winch is engaged. This process not only forces downward pressure on 
the bed but it also forces the pipe together. The end result is a 
tighter bundle of product on the trailer bed. This method has been 
demonstrated to the enforcement community and has been deemed to be 
a safe and practical means of transporting pipe. SC&RA proposes 
flexibility in this area that would either require two [\3/8\-inch] 
cables or a single [\1/2\-inch] cable with a [two-speed] winch 
mount.

FMCSA Response

    We agree with the comments from ACPA and SC& RA. The most important 
aspect of the requirement for the longitudinal tiedown is the working 
load limit. Either one \1/2\-inch, or two \3/8\-inch cables or chains 
with the appropriate working load limit(s) would ensure safety. We 
believe it is possible to allow flexibility without reducing safety so 
the final rule provides increased flexibility for longitudinal 
tiedowns.

Flattened Cars

    The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) expressed 
concern about the proposed requirements for securing flattened cars. 
ISRI stated:

    Companies that process and load flattened and crushed cars for 
transport to recycling facilities must follow stringent practices to 
prevent loose material from falling from these loads. There are 
several different ways by which junked cars are flattened or 
crushed. Each of these practices includes processing controls and 
numerous inspections of the car to detect and remove loose material 
that could fall from the load during transport. A secured load of 
property processed and loaded flattened or crushed cars can be 
visually inspected by any law enforcement officer or transportation 
official to ascertain that the load will not shed loose material 
onto the roadway during transport.

    Hugo Neu Corporation submitted comments in opposition to those of 
ISRI. Hugo Neu stated:

    We are aware of the fact that a trade association of which we 
are a member, ISRI, along with the Steel Manufacturers Association 
(SMA), has commented on the proposed rules and prepared a 
presentation which purports to demonstrate that the proposed 
containment barriers are not needed to prevent the shifting and 
falling of cargo as it relates to flattened cars. Those comments are 
directed at attempting to mitigate the proposed standards requiring 
either four or three-sided trailers for transport of flattened cars 
with other containment requirements. ISRI and SMA have taken the 
position that these cars can be safety transported on a flatbed 
without walls. We strongly disagree.

FMCSA Response

    The FMCSA recognizes the concerns expressed by ISRI and the Steel 
Manufacturers Association. However, we believe the proposed rules 
concerning the securement of flattened cars should be adopted without 
change. While the specific practices for flattening cars ISRI mentioned 
may greatly reduce the likelihood that loose pieces will fall from the 
commercial motor vehicle transporting the flattened cars, we are not 
convinced that the flattening process alone would ensure transportation 
safety.
    This subject was debated extensively during the public meetings 
concerning the development of the model regulations. None of the 
information presented by ISRI or the transporters of flattened cars 
during those public meetings was convincing to the Federal, State and 
Provincial government representatives present, or the other industry 
groups represented. Consequently the model regulations included the 
language that FMCSA proposed.
    We continue to doubt that the degree to which cars are compressed 
ensures that none of the components will fall from the cars. The cars 
are compressed to a fraction of their original height to make it easier 
to transport them to recycling facilities. Most of the parts would be 
pressed together but some items such as door handles and mirrors may 
remain loosely attached to the vehicle. We believe that having loose 
parts is inevitable given that the process of compressing the car will 
undoubtedly do more damage to the car than the events that resulted in 
the car being turned over for recycling.
    A visual inspection, even by drivers or enforcement personnel, is 
not sufficient for making a determination whether portions of the load 
will vibrate or shake loose while the vehicle is traveling on public 
roads. Flattened cars are usually transported on flatbed trailers, and 
stacked in such a manner that neither a driver nor an inspector could 
determine with any degree of certainty whether there are loose items 
without climbing the stack of flattened cars to physically examine the 
load. We believe such an exercise would not effectively ensure safety 
because of the potential that a loose component could be missed during 
the inspection, and because of the risks to drivers and enforcement 
personnel associated with climbing stacks of flattened cars.
    There is a need for practical requirements for ensuring that 
commercial motor vehicles are properly equipped to prevent loose items 
that separate from the flattened car during transport from falling onto 
the roadway, without relying on risky inspection procedures for drivers 
or enforcement personnel. The rules being adopted today provide 
practical standards that would ensure that loose components on the 
flattened cars do not fall from the transport vehicle.

Visibility Requirements for Drivers of Self-Steer Dollies

    The ATA requested that Sec.  392.9(a)(3) include an exception for 
drivers of self-steer dollies. These dollies are typically a set of 
axles at the rear of a very long load. The cargo being transported 
between the truck tractor (or towing unit) and the dolly obscures the 
dolly driver's view because the driver is positioned under the load. 
The ATA argues that because the driver seated in the dolly is in 
contact with the driver in the truck tractor, the safety of the 
operation is not compromised by the fact that the load obscures the 
view of the dolly operator.

FMCSA Response

    FMCSA agrees with the ATA recommendation. Although it is important 
for CMV drivers to be capable of seeing other vehicles in the vicinity 
of the CMV, the agency does not believe safety would be adversely 
affected by cargo obscuring the dolly driver's view directly in front 
of him or her. Since the driver with primary control for the operation 
of the combination vehicle is in the truck tractor, and the driver in 
the truck tractor and dolly are able to communicate, there is no reason 
to be that safety would compromised. This is especially the case given 
that the commercial vehicle would most likely have escort vehicles.

[[Page 61220]]

Discussion of the Final Rule

    The rules being adopted are based on the North American Cargo 
Securement Standard Model Regulations. The agency is replacing its 
current cargo securement-related regulations under Sec.  392.9, 
concerning driver inspection of cargo and cargo securement systems, and 
Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.106 concerning cargo securement methods.
    The agency is also amending Sec.  393.5 to adopt definitions of 
aggregate working load limit; anchor point; article of cargo; bell pipe 
concrete; blocking; bracing; frame vehicle; friction mat; hook-lift 
container; integral securement system; longwood; rail vehicle; 
shortwood; sided vehicle; tiedown; tractor-pole trailer; void filler; 
well; and working load limit. The agency is adopting these definitions 
to ensure a common understanding of the terminology used in the 
regulations. The definitions are based on those in the model 
regulations.
    The FMCSA notes that there are numerous other definitions in the 
model regulations. However, the agency continues to believe that it is 
not 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 is revising Sec.  392.9 to require that drivers 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 continues to believe that 
the 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.

Applicability of the Final Rule

    Section 393.100 establishes the applicability of the cargo 
securement rules under subpart I of part 393. The applicability of the 
final rule is 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 is adopting new performance requirements concerning the 
longitudinal, lateral, and vertical accelerations that cargo securement 
systems must withstand to satisfy the 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 
requires 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 acceleration 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. We continue to believe that the information 
presented by the researchers supports the use of the decelerations 
listed above.
    Generally, motor carriers are not required to conduct testing of 
cargo securement systems to determine compliance with the performance 
requirement. Section 393.102 explicitly states that cargo that is 
immobilized or secured in accordance with general rules regarding cargo 
securement systems, or the commodity-specific rules, are considered to 
meet the performance criteria.

Safe and Proper Working Condition for Tiedowns

    The final rule includes a requirement that all vehicle structures, 
systems, parts, and components used to secure cargo must be in proper 
working order when used to perform that function with no damaged or 
weakened components that could adversely effect their performance. This 
requirement differs from the proposed rule in that the defect or 
deficiency must be capable of having an adverse effect on the 
performance of the cargo securement system before the prohibition would 
apply. The proposal would have prohibited the use of cargo securement 
devices with any visible damage, including but not limited to, cracks, 
cuts and deformation, regardless of whether there was any reason to 
believe there would be a safety problem. We carefully considered the 
numerous comments on the proposed language, and have made appropriate 
revision to the rule.

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 is updating its 
reference to the National Association of Chain Manufacturers' (NACM) 
Welded Steel Chain Specifications, June 15, 1990, edition to 
incorporate by reference the November 15, 1999, version. The agency 
notes that some of the working load limit values in the 1999 version 
differ slightly from those in the 1990 version. Also, the 1999 version 
includes working load limits for a new grade of alloy chain, grade 100.
    The agency is also changing its reference for synthetic webbing 
from the 1991 edition to the 1998 edition of the Web Sling and Tiedown 
Association's publication. Generally, the working load limits are the 
same as those in the 1991 publication.

Combining Requirements for Load Binders, Attachment Points and Winches

    The agency had proposed that Sec. Sec.  393.112, 393.114, and 
393.116 provide requirements for load binders and associated hardware, 
attachment points on commercial motor vehicles for tiedowns, and 
winches of fastening devices, respectively. Upon careful review of the 
proposed requirements and in response to numerous comments about the 
apparent redundancy with the general requirements under

[[Page 61221]]

Sec. Sec.  393.104(c), and 393.106(d), the final rule does not include 
the proposed wording that appeared in those sections. The remaining 
sections of the final rule have been renumbered accordingly.

Securement of Intermodal Containers and the Contents of Such Containers

    The FMCSA is adopting commodity-specific requirements which would 
apply to intermodal cargo containers. The requirements being adopted 
today includes a provision allowing motor carriers the option of 
attaching tiedowns to the upper corners of loaded containers. The 
proposal would have required that all tiedowns be attached to the lower 
corners of the loaded containers. The agency agreed with commenters 
concerns about the need for flexibility in securing the containers.
    The agency is including in the final rule a provision concerning 
the transportation of empty intermodal containers. Upon careful review 
of the model regulations and previously issued regulatory guidance, the 
agency determined that a less stringent provision concerning the 
securement of empty containers should be included. Empty intermodal 
containers have been transported safely on vehicles other than 
container chassis for many years. Frequently, the container(s) may 
overhand the front or rear of the trailer. However, as long the 
containers are properly secured, motor carriers have been allowed to 
transport them in this manner. Since the empty containers are a 
fraction of the weight of fully laden containers, the securement 
methods needed to ensure safety are not as extensive as with loaded 
containers. The new language concerning empty containers is provided in 
Sec.  393.126(d).
    The agency is also adopting specific rules for metal coils 
transported in intermodal cargo containers. The agency does not believe 
the rules will create difficulties for motor carriers or shippers 
offering loaded containers for transportation.
    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, when it is practicable to inspect the 
condition of loading.

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 is retaining its current front-end 
structure rules for CMVs. The FMCSA is, however, revising 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. They assume 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, we continue to believe that 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. However, by 
establishing new rules to better ensure that the coils do not move 
forward, we are more likely to accomplish the safety objective of 
saving lives and preventing injuries.

Specific Securement Requirements by Commodity Type

    The FMCSA is adopting 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. We continue to 
believe 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 most of 
the confusion about what constitutes an acceptable cargo securement 
system.
    The FMCSA notes that the requirements for the securement of 
concrete pipe being adopted today does not include the provision 
requiring that ice be removed from pipe before it is loaded. The agency 
no longer believes that provision is necessary because most shipments 
of concrete pipe would not be covered with ice, and in those cases 
where ice was present, there may be no practicable means of deicing the 
pipe prior to it being loaded onto a CMV. Most shippers of concrete 
pipe would ensure to the greatest extent practicable that the pipe is 
not covered with ice immediately prior to transport. For those cases in 
which exposure to ice could not be avoided, motor carriers are strongly 
encouraged to take appropriate actions to ensure that load is properly 
secured before transport. However, the agency does not believe it is 
necessary to make the mere presence of any amount of ice on a concrete 
pipe a violation of the FMCSRs.

Use of Unmarked Tiedowns

    The final rule does not include a prohibition on the use of 
unmarked tiedown devices. Although many of the participants in the 
harmonization group meetings and numerous commenters to the NPRM argue 
that the Federal cargo securement rules should include such a 
prohibition, we do not believe it is appropriate to establish such a 
rule at this time.
    Before establishing a prohibition on the use of unmarked tiedowns, 
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 prohibit 
these devices. However, in view of the potential safety hazards of 
motor carriers misidentifying unmarked tiedowns, the final rule 
includes a provision that unmarked welded steel

[[Page 61222]]

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.

Rating and Marking of Anchor Points

    The final rule does not include a requirement that anchor points be 
rated and marked. While we continue to agree with the basic principle 
of rating and marking of anchor points, there is insufficient data to 
support establishing manufacturing standards at this time. As we 
indicated above, we will continue to work with the TTMA and other 
private sector groups to gather information about the extent to which 
trailer manufacturers follow the TTMA's recommended practice concerning 
rating and marking of anchor points. As we gather this information, we 
will consider the need for any future standards development work in 
this area.

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 will cover all 
of the requirements in the model regulations, and to some extent, best 
practices for securing cargo. The training materials may 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 will be completed and available 
to the public from the FMCSA before the deadline for compliance with 
the final rule. The FMCSA will post publications on its website to 
assist individuals with Internet access. The FMCSA will also consider 
making copies of the training materials available through the U.S. 
Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service.

Compliance Date

    The FMCSA has chosen January 1, 2004, as the deadline for motor 
carriers to ensure compliance with the final rule. The FMCSA believes 
this time frame is appropriate and will provide motor carriers and 
enforcement officials sufficient time to prepare for the transition 
from the current requirements to rules compatible with the model 
regulations.

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. Neither the level of public or Congressional interest, nor 
the costs of implementing the final rule are such that the rule would 
be considered significant. Based on the information currently 
available, the cost to the motor carrier industry for compliance with 
the rules, and the cost to the States for adopting and enforcing the 
new requirements will be significantly less than the $100,000,000 
threshold used as one of the factors in determining the significance of 
a rulemaking.
    This rule requires 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 revision requires 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 changes 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 final rule allows 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 adopted. However, this cost 
should be minimal 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 final rule requires 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 
rule requires motor carriers to increase the number of tiedown devices 
used to secure certain types of cargoes. However, the rule does not 
require motor carriers to purchase new equipment.
    The FMCSA finds that 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. As we stated in the preamble to the notice of proposed 
rulemaking, 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, FMCSA believes that motor carriers 
already have all the hardware they need to comply with the proposed 
changes. The challenge for motor carriers is to learn how to properly 
use tiedown devices to

[[Page 61223]]

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 final rule, the agency is continuing 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 is not prohibited by this 
rule.
    As indicated above, additional costs may 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 final rule does not adopt the 
provisions in the NPRM that distinguish between direct and indirect 
tiedowns. This means that there are very few aspects, if any, of the 
new requirements that differ significantly from the technical concepts 
in the current rules, and the best practices of the motor carrier 
industry. However, training may be desirable for some individuals. It 
is more likely than not that compliance with the final rule could be 
achieved with a minimal amount of training. 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 could 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 maximum 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 will be minimal.
    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.

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. It has been determined 
that this rulemaking does not have a substantial direct effect on 
States, nor would it limit the policy-making discretion of the States. 
Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor 
Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 
regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and 
activities 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 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is a new 
administration within the Department of Transportation (DOT). We are 
striving to meet all of the statutory and executive branch requirements 
on rulemaking. The FMCSA is currently developing an agency order that 
will comply with all statutory and regulatory policies under the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We 
expect the draft FMCSA Order to appear in the Federal Register for 
public comment in the near future. The framework of the FMCSA Order is 
consistent with and reflects the procedures for considering 
environmental impacts under DOT Order 5610.1C. The FMCSA analyzed this 
final rule under the NEPA and DOT Order 5610.1C. Since the final rule 
relates only to the way motor carriers use cargo securement devices to 
prevent certain articles from shifting on or within, or falling from 
CMVs, we believe it would be among the type of regulations that would 
be categorically excluded from any environmental assessment.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not economically 
significant and is not likely to have a significant adverse

[[Page 61224]]

effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 392

    Highway safety, Motor carriers.

49 CFR Part 393

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

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FMCSA is amending title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, as follows:

PART 392--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 392 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 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 Sec. Sec.  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 
(except for drivers of self-steer dollies), 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--
    (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 during the course of transportation and make any 
necessary adjustment to the cargo or load securement devices, including 
adding more securement devices, to ensure that cargo cannot shift on or 
within, or fall from, the commercial motor vehicle. Reexamination and 
any necessary adjustments must be made whenever --
    (i) The driver makes a change of his/her duty status; or
    (ii) The commercial motor vehicle has been driven for 3 hours; or
    (iii) 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. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914; 
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 
of cargo on a vehicle.
* * * * *
    Anchor point. Part of the structure, fitting or attachment on a 
vehicle or article of cargo to which a tiedown is attached.
* * * * *
    Article of cargo. A unit of cargo, other than a liquid, gas, or 
aggregate that lacks physical structure (e.g., grain, gravel, etc.) 
including articles grouped together so that they can be handled as a 
single unit or unitized by wrapping, strapping, banding or edge 
protection device(s).
* * * * *
    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 of cargo to prevent horizontal movement of 
the article of cargo.
    Bracing. A structure, device, or another substantial article placed 
against an article of cargo to prevent it from tipping, that may also 
prevent it from shifting.
* * * * *
    Dunnage. All loose materials used to support and protect cargo.
    Dunnage bag. An inflatable bag intended to fill otherwise empty 
space between articles of cargo, or between articles of cargo and the 
wall of the vehicle.
* * * * *
    Edge protector. A device placed on the exposed edge of an article 
to distribute tiedown forces over a larger area of cargo than the 
tiedown itself, to protect the tie-down and/or cargo from damage, and 
to allow the tiedown to slide freely when being tensioned.
* * * * *
    Frame vehicle. A vehicle with skeletal structure fitted with one or 
more bunk units for transporting logs. A bunk unit consists of 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 
article of 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.
* * * * *
    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 articles of 
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

[[Page 61225]]

and rear to contain logs loaded crosswise.
* * * * *
    Shoring bar. A device placed transversely between the walls of a 
vehicle and cargo to prevent cargo from tipping or shifting.
    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 articles of 
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 articles of cargo to, or restrains articles of 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 space 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 of 
cargo 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. Section 393.7 is revised as follows:


Sec.  393.7  Matter incorporated by reference.

    (a) Incorporation by reference. Part 393 includes references to 
certain matter or materials, as listed in paragraph (b) of this 
section. The text of the materials is not included in the regulations 
contained in part 393. The materials are hereby made a part of the 
regulations in part 393. The Director of the Federal Register has 
approved the materials incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. For materials subject to change, only 
the specific version approved by the Director of the Federal Register 
and specified in the regulation are incorporated. Material is 
incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval and a notice of 
any change in these materials will be published in the Federal 
Register.
    (b) Matter or materials referenced in part 393. The matter or 
materials listed in this paragraph are incorporated by reference in the 
corresponding sections noted.
    (1) Highway Emergency Signals, Fourth Edition, Underwriters 
Laboratories, Inc., UL No. 912, July 30, 1979, (with an amendment dated 
November 9, 1981), incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  
393.95(j).
    (2) Standard Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals, 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), D3953-97, February 
1998, incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  393.104(e).
    (3) Welded Steel Chain Specifications, National Association of 
Chain Manufacturers, November 15, 1999, incorporation by reference 
approved for Sec.  393.104(e).
    (4) Recommended Standard Specification for Synthetic Web Tiedowns, 
Web Sling and Tiedown Association, WSTDA-T1, 1998, incorporation by 
reference approved for Sec.  393.104(e).
    (5) Wire Rope Users Manual, 2nd Edition, Wire Rope Technical Board 
November 1985, incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  
393.104(e).
    (6) Cordage Institute rope standards approved for incorporation 
into Sec.  393.104(e):
    (i) PETRS-2, Polyester Fiber Rope, 3-Strand and 8-Strand 
Constructions, January 1993;
    (ii) PPRS-2, Polypropylene Fiber Rope, 3-Strand and 8-Strand 
Constructions, August 1992;
    (iii) CRS-1, Polyester/Polypropylene Composite Rope Specifications, 
Three-Strand and Eight-Strand Standard Construction, May 1979;
    (iv) NRS-1, Nylon Rope Specifications, Three-Strand and Eight-
Strand Standard Construction, May 1979; and
    (v) C-1, Double Braided Nylon Rope Specifications DBN, January 
1984.
    (c) Availability. The materials incorporated by reference are 
available as follows:
    (1) Standards of the Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Information 
and copies may be obtained by writing to: Underwriters Laboratories, 
Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, Illinois 60062.
    (2) Specifications of the American Society for Testing and 
Materials. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: 
American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West 
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428-2959.
    (3) Specifications of the National Association of Chain 
Manufacturers. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: 
National Association of Chain Manufacturers, P.O. Box 22681, Lehigh 
Valley, Pennsylvania 18002-2681.
    (4) Specifications of the Web Sling and Tiedown Association. 
Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: Web Sling and 
Tiedown Association, Inc., 5024-R Campbell Boulevard, Baltimore, 
Maryland 21236-5974.
    (5) Manuals of the Wire Rope Technical Board. Information and 
copies may be obtained by writing to: Wire Rope Technical Committee, 
P.O. Box 849, Stevensville, Maryland 21666.
    (6) Standards of the Cordage Institute. Information and copies may 
be obtained by writing to: Cordage Institute, 350 Lincoln Street, 
 115, Hingham, Massachusetts 02043.
    (7)-(9) [Reserved].
    (10) All of the materials incorporated by reference are available 
for inspection at:
    (i) The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Bus 
and Truck Standards and Operations, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590; and
    (ii) The Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC.

    6. Section 393.95(j) is amended by replacing the reference to 
``Sec.  393.7(b)'' with ``Sec.  393.7(c).''

    7. 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 articles of 
cargo?
393.108 How is the working load limit of a tiedown determined?

[[Page 61226]]

393.110 What else do I have to do to determine the minimum number of 
tiedowns?
393.112 Must a tiedown be adjustable?
393.114 What are the requirements for front end structures used as 
part of a cargo securement system?

Specific Securement Requirements by Commodity Type

393.116 What are the rules for securing logs?
393.118 What are the rules for securing dressed lumber or similar 
building products?
393.120 What are the rules for securing metal coils?
393.122 What are the rules for securing paper rolls?
393.124 What are the rules for securing concrete pipe?
393.126 What are the rules for securing intermodal containers?
393.128 What are the rules for securing automobiles, light trucks 
and vans?
393.130 What are the rules for securing heavy vehicles, equipment 
and machinery?
393.132 What are the rules for securing flattened or crushed 
vehicles?
393.134 What are the rules for securing roll-on/roll-off and hook 
lift containers?
393.136 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 leaking, spilling, blowing or falling from the motor 
vehicle.
    (c) Prevention against shifting of load. Cargo must be contained, 
immobilized or secured in accordance with this subpart to prevent 
shifting upon or within the vehicle to such an extent that the 
vehicle's stability or maneuverability is adversely affected.


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 acceleration 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 article of cargo if the article is not 
fully contained within the structure of the vehicle. If the article is 
fully contained within the structure of the vehicle, it may be secured 
in accordance with Sec.  393.106(b).
    (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.
    (d) Equivalent means of securement. Cargo that is immobilized, or 
secured in accordance with the applicable requirements of Sec. Sec.  
393.104 through 393.136, is considered as meeting the performance 
criteria 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 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 with 
no damaged or weakened components that will adversely effect their 
performance for cargo securement purposes, including reducing the 
working load limit, and must not have any cracks or cuts.
    (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 
articles of cargo must be strong enough to meet the performance 
criteria of Sec.  393.102, with no damaged or weakened components that 
will adversely effect their performance for cargo securement purposes, 
including reducing the working load limit, and must not have any cracks 
or cuts.
    (d) Material for dunnage, chocks, cradles, shoring bars, blocking 
and bracing. Material used as dunnage or dunnage bags, chocks, cradles, 
shoring bars, or used for blocking and bracing, must not have damage or 
defects which would compromise the effectiveness of the securement 
system.
    (e) Manufacturing standards for tiedown assemblies. Tiedown 
assemblies (including chains, wire rope, steel strapping, synthetic 
webbing, and cordage) and other attachment or fastening devices used to 
secure articles of 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) D3953-97, February 1998.\4\
(2) Chain..................................................  National Association of Chain Manufacturers' Welded
                                                              Steel Chain Specifications, November 15, 1999.\4\
(3) Webbing................................................  Web Sling and Tiedown Association's Recommended
                                                              Standard Specification for Synthetic Web Tiedowns,
                                                              WSTDA-T1, 1998.\4\
(4) Wire rope \3\..........................................  Wire Rope Technical Board's Wire Rope Users Manual,
                                                              2nd Edition, November 1985.\4\
(5) Cordage................................................  Cordage Institute rope standard:
                                                                (i) PETRS-2, Polyester Fiber Rope, three-Strand
                                                                 and eight-Strand Constructions, January 1993;
                                                                 \4\
                                                                (ii) PPRS-2, Polypropylene Fiber Rope, three-
                                                                 Strand and eight-Strand Constructions, August
                                                                 1992; \4\
                                                                (iii) CRS-1, Polyester/Polypropylene Composite
                                                                 Rope Specifications, three-Strand and eight-
                                                                 Strand Standard Construction, May 1979; \4\
                                                                (iv) NRS-1, Nylon Rope Specifications, three-
                                                                 Strand and eight-Strand Standard Construction,
                                                                 May 1979; \4\ and

[[Page 61227]]

 
                                                                (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 D3953-97.
\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 for information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this document.

    (f) Use of tiedowns. (1) Tiedowns and securing devices must not 
contain knots.
    (2) If a tiedown is repaired, it must be repaired in accordance 
with the applicable standards in paragraph (e) of this section, or the 
manufacturer's instructions.
    (3) Each tiedown must be attached and secured in a manner that 
prevents it from becoming loose, unfastening, opening or releasing 
while the vehicle is in transit.
    (4) All tiedowns and other components of a cargo securement system 
used to secure loads on a trailer equipped with rub rails, must be 
located inboard of the rub rails whenever practicable.
    (5) Edge protection must be used whenever a tiedown would be 
subject to abrasion or cutting at the point where it touches an article 
of cargo. The edge protection must resist abrasion, cutting and 
crushing.


Sec.  393.106  What are the general requirements for securing articles 
of cargo?

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section are applicable to the 
transportation of all types of articles 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 additional 
requirements are given for a commodity listed in those sections.
    (b) General. Cargo must be firmly immobilized or secured on or 
within a vehicle by structures of adequate strength, dunnage or dunnage 
bags, shoring bars, tiedowns or a combination of these.
    (c) Cargo placement and restraint. (1) Articles of cargo that are 
likely to roll must be restrained by chocks, wedges, a cradle or other 
equivalent means to prevent rolling. The means of preventing rolling 
must not be capable of becoming unintentionally unfastened or loose 
while the vehicle is in transit.
    (2) Articles or cargo placed beside each other and secured by 
transverse tiedowns must either:
    (i) Be placed in direct contact with each other, or
    (ii) Be prevented from shifting towards each other while in 
transit.
    (d) Minimum strength of cargo securement devices and systems. The 
aggregate working load limit of any securement system 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. The aggregate 
working load limit is the sum of:
    (1) One-half of the working load limit of each associated connector 
or attachment mechanism used to secure a part of the article of cargo 
to the vehicle; and
    (2) One-half of the working load limit for each end section of a 
tiedown that is attached to an anchor point.


Sec.  393.108  How is the working load limit of a tiedown determined?

    (a) The working load limit (WLL) of a tiedown, associated connector 
or attachment mechanism is the lowest working load limit of any of its 
components (including tensioner), or the working load limit of the 
anchor points to which it is attached, whichever is less.
    (b) 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.
    (c) 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.
    (d) 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.
    (e)(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.
    (f) Manila rope which is not marked by the manufacturer with a 
working load limit shall be considered to have a working load limit 
based on its diameter as provided in the tables of working load limits.
    (g) Friction mats which are not marked or rated by the manufacturer 
shall be considered to provide resistance to horizontal movement equal 
to 50 percent of the weight placed on the mat.?

[[Page 61228]]



                                                                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)     1,950 (4,300)
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.................................................                 3                 4                 7                 8                10
    Example 2.................................................                30                43                70                80               100
    Example 3.................................................               300               430               700               800              1000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the length of the article(s) being secured, 
and the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (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.
    (c) If an individual article is required to be blocked, braced or 
immobilized to prevent movement in the forward direction by a 
headerboard, bulkhead, other articles which are adequately secured or 
by an appropriate blocking or immobilization method, it must be secured 
by at least one tiedown for every 3.04 meters (10 feet) or article 
length, or fraction thereof.
    (d) Special rule for special purpose vehicles. The rules in this 
section do not apply to a vehicle transporting one or more articles of 
cargo such as, but not limited to, machinery or fabricated structural 
items (e.g., steel or concrete beams, crane booms, girders, and

[[Page 61229]]

trusses, etc.) which, because of their design, size, shape, or weight, 
must be fastened by special methods. However, any article of cargo 
carried on that vehicle must be securely and adequately fastened to the 
vehicle.


Sec.  393.112  Must a tiedown be adjustable?

    Each tiedown, or its associated connectors, or its attachment 
mechanisms must be designed, constructed, and maintained so the driver 
of an in-transit commercial motor vehicle can tighten them. However, 
this requirement does not apply to the use of steel strapping.


Sec.  393.114  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 articles of cargo that are 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 article 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 article 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 articles of 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 
article 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 articles of 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 article 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 
article 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 articles of cargo at least equal to, a 
front end structure which conforms to those requirements.

Specific Securement Requirements by Commodity Type


Sec.  393. 116  What are the rules for securing logs?

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section are applicable to the 
transportation of logs with the following exceptions:
    (1) Logs that are unitized by banding or other comparable means may 
be transported in accordance with the general cargo securement rules of 
Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114.
    (2) Loads that consist of no more than four processed logs may be 
transported in accordance with the general cargo securement rules of 
Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114.
    (3) 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.
    (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 bottom logs must be in contact with and resting solidly 
against the bunks, bolsters, stakes or standards.
    (2) Each outside log on the side of a stack of logs must touch at 
least two stakes, bunks, bolsters, or standards. If one end does not 
actually touch a stake, it must rest on other logs in a stable manner 
and must extend beyond the stake, bunk, bolster or standard.
    (3) The center of the highest outside log on each side or end must 
be below the top of each stake, bunk or standard.
    (4) Each log that is not held in place by contact with other logs 
or the stakes, bunks, or standards must be held in place by a 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) Securement of shortwood logs loaded crosswise on frame, rail 
and flatbed vehicles. In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b) 
and (c) of this section, each stack of logs loaded crosswise must meet 
the following rules:
    (1) In no case may the end of a log in the lower tier extend more 
than one-third of the log's total length beyond the nearest supporting 
structure on the vehicle.
    (2) When only one stack of shortwood is loaded crosswise, it must 
be secured with at least two tiedowns. The tiedowns must attach to the 
vehicle frame at the front and rear of the load, and must cross the 
load in this direction.
    (3) When two tiedowns are used, they must be positioned at 
approximately one-third and two-thirds of the length of the logs.
    (4) A vehicle that is more than 10 meters (33 feet) long must be 
equipped with center stakes, or comparable devices, to divide it into 
sections approximately 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 it may pass through a pulley or equivalent device 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 are loaded side-by-side, in addition 
to meeting the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this 
section, they must be loaded so that:
    (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;

[[Page 61230]]

    (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.
    (e) Securement of logs loaded lengthwise on flatbed and frame 
vehicles. In addition to meeting the requirements of paragraphs (b) and 
(c) of this section, each stack of shortwood loaded lengthwise on a 
frame vehicle or on a flatbed must be secured to the vehicle by at 
least two tiedowns.
    (f) 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 bunks must be secured to 
the underlying load with at least two additional wrappers.


Sec.  393.118  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 
Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114 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 article of cargo.
    (b) Positioning of bundles. Bundles must be placed side by side in 
direct contact with each other, or a means must be provided to prevent 
bundles from shifting towards each other.
    (c) Securement of bundles transported using no more than one tier. 
Bundles carried on one tier must be secured in accordance with the 
general provisions of Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114.
    (d) 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 tiedowns laid out over the top tier, as outlined 
in the general provisions of Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114; or
    (2) Restrained from lateral movement by blocking or high friction 
devices between tiers and secured by tiedowns laid out over the top 
tier, as outlined in the general provisions of Sec. Sec.  393.100 
through 393.114; 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 equal to or 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 tiedowns over the top tier of bundles, in accordance 
with the general provisions of Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114 with 
a minimum of two tiedowns for bundles longer than 1.52 meters (5 ft); 
and
    (B) Secured by tiedowns in accordance with the general provisions 
of Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114 over the second tier or over a 
middle tier of a maximum height of 1.85 meters (6 ft) above the trailer 
deck, whichever is greater, for each stack of bundles composed of more 
than two tiers; or
    (4) Secured by tiedowns over each tier of bundles, in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114 using a minimum of two tiedowns 
over each of the top bundles longer than 1.52 meters (5 ft), in all 
circumstances.


Sec.  393.120  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 
grouped 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 Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 
393.114.
    (b) Securement of coils transported with eyes vertical on a flatbed 
vehicle, in a sided vehicle or intermodal container with anchor 
points--(1) An individual coil. Each coil must be secured by tiedowns 
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 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 tiedown attached diagonally from the right side 
of the vehicle or intermodal container (near the forwardmost 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 tiedown attached transversely over the eye of 
the coil; and
    (iv) Either blocking and bracing, friction mats or tiedowns must be 
used to prevent longitudinal movement in the forward direction.
    (2) Coils grouped in rows. When coils are grouped and loaded side 
by side in a transverse or longitudinal row, the each row of coils must 
be secured by the following:
    (i) At least one 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 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 tiedown over the top of each coil or transverse 
row of coils, restraining against vertical motion. 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) Tiedowns must be arranged to prevent shifting or tipping in 
the forward, rearward and lateral directions.
    (c) Securement of coils transported with eyes crosswise on a 
flatbed vehicle, in a sided vehicle or intermodal container with anchor 
points--(1) An individual coil. Each 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;

[[Page 61231]]

    (ii) At least one 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 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 tiedowns when coils are transported 
with eyes crosswise. Attaching tiedowns diagonally through the eye of a 
coil to form an X-pattern when viewed from above the vehicle is 
prohibited.
    (d) Securement of coils transported with eyes lengthwise on a 
flatbed vehicle, in a sided vehicle or intermodal container with anchor 
points--(1) An individual coil-option 1. Each 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 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 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 tiedown attached transversely over the top of the 
coil; and
    (v) Either blocking, or friction mats to prevent longitudinal 
movement.
    (2) An individual coil--option 2. Each 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 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 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;
    (iv) At least one tiedown attached transversely over the top of the 
coil; and
    (v) Either blocking or friction mats to prevent longitudinal 
movement.
    (3) An individual coil--option 3. Each 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 tiedown over the top of the coil, located near 
the forward-most part of the coil;
    (iii) At least one 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.he forward direction.
    (4) Rows of coils. Each 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 one tiedown over the top of each coil or transverse 
row, located near the forward-most part of the coil;
    (iii) At least one tiedown over the top of each coil or transverse 
row, located near the rearmost part of the coil; and
    (iv) Either blocking, bracing or friction mats to prevent 
longitudinal movement.
    (e) Securement of coils transported in a sided vehicle without 
anchor points or an intermodal container without anchor points. Metal 
coils transported in a vehicle with sides without anchor points or an 
intermodal container without anchor points must be loaded in a manner 
to prevent shifting and tipping. The coils may also be secured using a 
system of blocking and bracing, friction mats, tiedowns, or a 
combination of these to prevent any horizontal movement and tipping.


Sec.  393.122  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 
Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114.
    (b) Securement of paper rolls transported 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,

[[Page 61232]]

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 it 
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) Securement of split loads of paper rolls transported 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) Securement of stacked loads of paper rolls transported with 
eyes vertical in a sided vehicle. (1) Paper rolls must not be loaded on 
a layer of paper rolls beneath unless the lower 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 38 mm (1.5 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) Securement of paper rolls transported 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) Securement of stacked loads of paper rolls transported with 
eyes 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 third or 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:
    (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) Securement of paper rolls transported 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) Securement of stacked loads of paper rolls transported 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) Securement of paper rolls transported 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 Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114.
    (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) Tiedowns must be used in accordance with the requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114 to prevent lateral movement.


Sec.  393.124  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

[[Page 61233]]

pipe loaded in a sided vehicle or container must be secured in 
accordance with the provisions of Sec. Sec.  Sec.  393.100 through 
393.114.
    (b) General specifications for tiedowns. (1) The aggregate working 
load limit of all tiedowns on any group of pipes must not be less than 
half the total weight of all the pipes in the group.
    (2) A transverse tiedown through a pipe on an upper tier or over 
longitudinal tiedowns is considered to secure all those pipes beneath 
on which that tiedown causes pressure.
    (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. A third or higher 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.
    (a) Securing pipe with an inside diameter up to 1,143 mm (45 in). 
In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this 
section, the following rules must be satisfied:
    (1) Stabilizing the bottom tier. (i) The bottom tier must be 
immobilized 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; and
    (iii) Every pipe in the bottom tier must also be held firmly in 
contact with the adjacent pipe by tiedowns though the front and rear 
pipes:
    (A) At least one tiedown through the front pipe of the bottom tier 
must run aft at an angle not more than 45 degrees with the horizontal, 
whenever practicable.
    (B) At least one tiedown through 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) Each pipe may be secured individually with 
tiedowns through the pipe.
    (ii) If each pipe is not secured individually with a tiedown, then:
    (A) Either one 1/2-inch diameter chain or wire rope, or two 3/8-
inch diameter chain or wire rope, must be placed longitudinally over 
the group of pipes;
    (B) One transverse tiedown must be used for every 3.04 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.
    (C) If the first pipe of a group in the top tier is not placed in 
the first well formed by pipes at the front of the tier beneath, it 
must be secured by an additional tiedown that runs rearward at an angle 
not more than 45 degrees to the horizontal, whenever practicable. This 
tiedown must pass either through the front pipe of the upper tier, or 
outside it and over both longitudinal tiedowns; and
    (D) If the last pipe of a group in the top tier is not placed in 
the last well formed by pipes at the rear of the tier beneath, it must 
be secured by an additional 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). In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of 
this section, the following rules must be satisfied:
    (1) The front pipe and the rear pipe must be immobilized by 
blocking, wedges, vehicle end structure, stakes, locked pipe unloader, 
or other equivalent means.
    (2) Each pipe must be secured by tiedowns through the pipe:
    (i) At least one tiedown through each pipe in the front half of the 
load, which includes the middle one if there is an odd number, and must 
run rearward at an angle not more than 45 degrees with the horizontal, 
whenever practicable.
    (ii) At least one tiedown 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; and
    (iii) 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 tiedowns positioned as described in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, must be used through that pipe.
    (3) If only one pipe is transported, or if several pipes are 
transported without contact between other pipes, the requirements in 
this paragraph apply to each pipe as a single front and rear article.


Sec.  393.126  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 Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114 or, if applicable, the commodity 
specific rules of this part.
    (b) Securement of intermodal containers transported on container 
chassis vehicle(s). (1) Each 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.

[[Page 61234]]

    (3) The front and rear of the container must be secured 
independently.
    (c) Securement of loaded intermodal containers transported 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) Each container must be secured to the vehicle by:
    (i) Chains, wire ropes or integral devices which are fixed to all 
lower corners; or
    (ii) Crossed chains which are fixed to all upper corners; and,
    (3) The front and rear of the container must be secured 
independently. 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.
    (d) Securement of empty intermodal containers transported on 
vehicles other than container chassis vehicle(s). Empty intermodal 
containers transported on vehicles other than container chassis 
vehicles do not have to have all lower corners of the intermodal 
container resting upon the vehicle, or have all lower corners supported 
by a structure capable of bearing the weight of the empty container, 
provided:
    (1) The empty intermodal container is balanced and positioned on 
the vehicle in a manner such that the container is stable before the 
addition of tiedowns or other securement equipment; and,
    (2) The amount of overhang for the empty container on the trailer 
does not exceed five feet on either the front or rear of the trailer;
    (3) The empty intermodal container must not interfere with the 
vehicle's maneuverability; and,
    (4) The empty intermodal container is secured to prevent lateral, 
longitudinal, or vertical shifting.


Sec.  393.128  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 4,536 kg. (10,000 lb) or less. Vehicles which 
individually are heavier than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) must be secured in 
accordance with the provisions of Sec.  393.130 of this part.
    (b) Securement of automobiles, light trucks, and vans.
    (1) 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 tiedowns.
    (2) Tiedowns that are designed to be affixed to the structure of 
the automobile, light truck, or van must use the mounting points on 
those vehicles that have been specifically designed for that purpose.
    (3) Tiedowns that are designed to fit over or around the wheels of 
an automobile, light truck, or van must provide restraint in the 
lateral, longitudinal and vertical directions.
    (4) Edge protectors are not required for synthetic webbing at 
points where the webbing comes in contact with the tires.


Sec.  393.130  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.  393.128, or in accordance with the provisions 
of Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114.
    (b) Preparation of equipment being transported. (1) Accessory 
equipment, such as hydraulic shovels, must be completely lowered and 
secured to the vehicle.
    (2) Articulated vehicles shall be restrained in a manner that 
prevents articulation while in transit.
    (c) Securement of heavy vehicles, equipment or machinery with 
crawler tracks or wheels. (1) In addition to the requirements of 
paragraph (b) of this section, heavy equipment or machinery with 
crawler tracks or wheels must be restrained against movement in the 
lateral, forward, rearward, and vertical direction using a minimum of 
four tiedowns.
    (2) Each of the tiedowns must be affixed as close as practicable to 
the front and rear of the vehicle, or mounting points on the vehicle 
that have been specifically designed for that purpose.


Sec.  393.132  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 
that have been flattened or crushed.
    (b) Prohibition on the use of synthetic webbing. The use of 
synthetic webbing to secure flattened or crushed vehicles is 
prohibited.
    (c) 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 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 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) A minimum of three tiedowns are required per vehicle stack; or
    (4) A minimum of four tiedowns per vehicle stack.
    (5) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and 
(4), the following rules must be satisfied:
    (i) 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.
    (ii) The means used to contain loose parts may consist of 
structural walls, sides or sideboards, or suitable covering material, 
alone or in combinations.
    (iii) The use of synthetic material for containment of loose parts 
is permitted.


Sec.  393.134  What are the rules for securing roll-on/roll-off or hook 
lift containers?

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the 
transportation of roll-on/roll-off or hook lift containers.
    (b) Securement of a roll-on/roll-off and hook lift container. Each 
roll-on/roll-off and hook lift 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:

[[Page 61235]]

    (i) One tiedown attached to both the vehicle chassis and the 
container chassis;
    (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.  393.136  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 Sec. Sec.  
393.100 through 393.114, 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 Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114.
    (b) General requirements for the 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) General tiedown requirements. (1) Only chain may be used as 
tiedowns to secure large boulders.
    (2) 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) Securement of a cubic shaped boulder. In addition to the 
requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the following 
rules must be satisfied:
    (1) Each boulder must be secured individually with at least two 
chain tiedowns placed transversely across the vehicle.
    (2) The aggregate working load limit of the tiedowns must be at 
least half the weight of the boulder.
    (3) The tiedowns must be placed as closely as possible to the wood 
blocking used to support the boulder.
    (e) Securement of a non-cubic shaped boulder--with a stable base. 
In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section, the following rules must be satisfied:
    (1) The boulder must be secured individually with at least two 
chain tiedowns forming an ``X'' pattern over the boulder.
    (2) The aggregate working load limit of the tiedowns must be at 
least half the weight of the boulder.
    (3) 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.
    (f) Securement of a non-cubic shaped boulder--with an unstable 
base. In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section, each boulder must be secured by a combination of chain 
tiedowns as follows:
    (1) 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.
    (2) 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: September 8, 2002.
Joseph M. Clapp,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-23693 Filed 9-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P