[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 120 (Thursday, June 22, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35819-35834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5236]



[[Page 35819]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-21259]
RIN 2126-AA88


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

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends its September 27, 2002, final rule concerning 
protection against shifting and falling cargo for commercial motor 
vehicles (CMVs) operated in interstate commerce in response to 
petitions for rulemaking from the American Trucking Association (ATA), 
Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), Georgia-Pacific 
Corporation (Georgia-Pacific) and Weyerhaeuser, and in response to 
issues raised by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators 
(CCMTA), the Forest Resources Association, Inc. (FRA), the Washington 
Contract Loggers Association and the Washington Log Truckers Conference 
(WCLA/WLTC), and the Timber Producers Association of Michigan and 
Wisconsin (TPA). The amendments make the final rule more consistent 
with the December 18, 2000, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to 
adopt the North American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulations. 
This final rule also includes several editorial revisions to the 2002 
final rule.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

DATES: The rule is effective July 24, 2006. The publication 
incorporated by reference in this final rule is approved by the 
Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of July 24, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Huntley, Chief of the 
Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, 202-366-4009.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is organized as follows:

I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
II. Background
III. Discussion of Comments to the NPRM
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act 
of 1935 and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984.
    The Motor Carrier Act of 1935, as amended, provides that ``[t]he 
Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for: (1) 
Qualifications and maximum hours-of-service of employees of, and safety 
of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications 
and maximum hours-of-service of employees of, and standards of 
equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of 
operation'' (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)).
    This final rule amends regulations concerning protection against 
shifting and falling cargo (cargo securement), applicable to motor 
carriers of property, which were promulgated by FMCSA on September 27, 
2002 (67 FR 61212). The cargo securement regulations deal directly with 
the ``safety of operation and equipment of * * * a motor carrier'' 
(sec. 31502(b)(1)) and the ``standards of equipment of, a motor private 
carrier when needed to promote safety of operation'' (sec. 
31502(b)(2)). The adoption and enforcement of such rules is 
specifically authorized by the Motor Carrier Act of 1935. This final 
rule rests squarely on that authority.
    The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 provides concurrent authority 
to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires 
the Secretary of Transportation to ``prescribe regulations on 
commercial motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall prescribe 
minimum safety standards for commercial motor vehicles. At a minimum, 
the regulations shall ensure that: (1) Commercial motor vehicles are 
maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the 
responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do 
not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the 
physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is 
adequate to enable them to operate vehicles safely; and (4) the 
operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious 
effect on the physical condition of the operators'' (49 U.S.C. 
31136(a)).
    This final rule deals with cargo securement. It is based primarily 
on sec. 31136(a)(1) and (2), and secondarily on sec. 31136(a)(4). This 
rulemaking would ensure CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and 
operated safely by requiring that cargo be secured in a manner that 
prevents it from shifting upon a CMV to such an extent that the 
vehicle's stability or maneuverability is adversely affected, or 
falling from the commercial motor vehicle and striking another vehicle. 
Compliance with the cargo securement regulations is necessary to ensure 
vehicles are equipped with appropriate cargo securement devices, loads 
are properly positioned on the vehicle, and vehicles are operated 
safely without the risk of shifting or falling cargo.
    Finally, the rulemaking would ensure the operation of CMVs does not 
have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators of 
vehicles by preventing articles of cargo from shifting forward into the 
driver's compartment, or shifting upon the vehicle to such an extent 
that the vehicle's stability or maneuverability is adversely affected 
and likely to cause a crash.
    Therefore, FMCSA considers the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 
31136(a)(1), (2) and (4) to be applicable to this rulemaking action. 
The rulemaking would amend regulations concerning commercial vehicle 
equipment, loading and operations, prescribe regulations applicable to 
the responsibilities frequently imposed upon drivers to ensure their 
ability to operate safely is not impaired, and help to prevent serious 
injuries to CMV drivers that could result from improperly secured 
loads.
    With regard to 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3), FMCSA does not believe this 
provision concerning the physical condition of drivers is applicable 
because this rulemaking does not concern the establishment of driver 
qualifications standards. This final rule addresses safety requirements 
applicable to the cargo securement methods used by drivers who are 
often assigned the responsibility for ensuring that freight is 
restrained to prevent shifting upon or falling from the CMV, but it 
does not include issues related to the physical qualifications or 
physical capabilities of drivers who must complete such tasks.
    However, before prescribing any such regulations, FMCSA must 
consider the ``costs and benefits'' of any proposal (49 U.S.C. 
31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)).

[[Page 35820]]

II. Background

    On September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61212), FMCSA published a final rule 
revising its regulations concerning protection against shifting and 
falling cargo for CMVs operated in interstate commerce. The final rule 
is based on the North American Cargo Securement Standard Model 
Regulations, reflecting the results of a multi-year comprehensive 
research program to evaluate the then-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 
Agency indicated that the intent of the rulemaking is to reduce the 
number of crashes 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. Motor carriers were given until January 1, 2004, to comply 
with the new regulations.
    FMCSA received separate petitions for reconsideration of the final 
rule from the FPAC, Georgia-Pacific, Weyerhauser, and the ATA. A copy 
of each petition is included in the Docket No. FMCSA-2005-21259. 
Although each of the Petitioners considered its request to be a 
petition for reconsideration of the final rule, each of the requests 
was submitted after the deadline provided in 49 CFR 389.35 (i.e., 
petitions for reconsideration must be submitted no later than 30 days 
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register). 
Therefore, the petitions were treated as petitions for rulemaking in 
accordance with 49 CFR 389.35. Additionally, FMCSA received comments 
from the CCMTA, FRA, WCLA/WLTC, and the TPA. Copies of these comments 
are also in Docket No. FMCSA-2005-21259.
    On June 8, 2005, FMCSA published an NPRM which addressed each of 
the petitions and associated comments received in response to the 
September 27, 2002, final rule identified above (70 FR 33430). The 
proposed amendments were intended to make the final rule more 
consistent with the December 18, 2000, NPRM on the same subject and The 
North American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulations that the new 
regulations are based upon. In response to inquiries and requests for 
guidance regarding enforcement of the cargo securement regulations, the 
agency also proposed amendments regarding manufacturing standards for 
tiedowns, and cargo securement requirements for dressed lumber, metal 
coils, paper rolls, intermodal containers and flattened cars. The NPRM 
also included several editorial corrections to the September 2002 final 
rule. A full discussion of the proposed amendments is included in the 
NPRM.

III. Discussion of Comments to the NPRM

    The agency received 31 comments in response to the NPRM. The 
commenters included: The Allegheny Industrial Associates (Allegheny), 
American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), ATA, 
Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM), Jerry R. Berenz, CCMTA, 
Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), Coastal Transport, Inc., Colorado 
Rural Electric Association (CREA), the DACAR Group (DACAR), Department 
of Energy (DOE), East Manufacturing Corporation (EMC), EdgeWorks, Inc. 
(EdgeWorks), FRA, FPAC, Georgia-Pacific, Greg G. Miller, Iowa 
Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), Kinedyne Corporation 
(Kinedyne), New York State DOT (NY DOT), North Carolina Forestry 
Association, Ohio State Patrol (OSP), Onyx Environmental Services LLC, 
Paper & Forest Industry Transportation Committee (PFITC), Rayonier, 
Inc. (Rayonier), Joseph Takacs, Jr., WCLA, Washington Trucking 
Associations (WTA), Dana M. Willaford, Wisconsin Transportation 
Builders Association (WTBA), and Verizon Services Corporation 
(Verizon).
    The majority of the commenters supported the proposed amendments. 
Several, however, suggested minor enhancements or modifications to the 
specific wording proposed by the Agency, to improve the clarity and to 
enhance the enforceability of the requirements. A discussion of each of 
the proposed amendments, including the comments received and the Agency 
position on each, is provided below.
    1. NPRM Proposal: FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  393.5 to include 
definitions of ``crib-type trailer,'' and ``metal coil''. (70 FR 33438)
    Comments: CCMTA stated that it does not support the addition of the 
proposed definition of ``crib-type log trailer'' in the Canadian 
standard at this time, as it has concerns with the prospect of logs 
being transported in trailers that are not restrained by any tiedowns.
    DACAR suggested that ``coiled rod'' be added to the definition of 
metal coil as this term is used in the industry and market place, and 
recommended that consideration should also be given to including 
``coated metal'' in the definition of metal coil. OSP agreed with the 
FMCSA decision to include a definition of ``metal coil,'' but commented 
that rubber or plastic encased wire on a spool should also be included 
in the definition of metal coil. Iowa DOT believes the proposed 
definition of metal coil should be expanded, as some enforcement 
jurisdictions are requiring compliance with this section when the load 
consists of wooden or metal spools or reels of wire, cable, tubing, 
plastic pipe, or other materials. Iowa DOT believes that spools and 
reels can be adequately secured by following the general cargo 
securement rules, including the use of blocks, wedges, or racks to keep 
the round spools and reels from rolling. CCMTA does not support the 
proposed definition of metal coils. CCMTA believes further assessment 
of the implications of including coils of wire and other metal products 
in this definition is needed, and proposed that metal wire which is not 
packaged on a spool should not be included in this definition, but 
rather should be secured in accordance with the general cargo 
securement requirements. Verizon stated rolls of telephone cable do not 
present the same risks as metal coils that meet the proposed definition 
and, therefore, should fall under the general cargo securement 
regulations.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA proposed a definition of ``crib-type log 
trailer'' in response to an inquiry from the Timber Producers 
Association of Michigan and Wisconsin, which expressed an interest in 
using a crib-type system for transporting logs and pulpwood. Such 
systems are typically based, in whole or in part, upon a patented 
design ``Apparatus for Constraining the Position of Logs on a Truck 
Trailer'' (Patent No. U.S. 6,572,314 B2). These systems use stakes, 
bunks, a front-end structure, and a rear structure to restrain logs on 
trailers. The stakes prevent movement of the logs from side to side on 
the vehicle while the front-end and rear structures prevent movement of 
the logs from front to back on the vehicle. The intent of such systems 
is to enable motor carriers to transport logs without the use of 
wrapper chains or straps to secure the load, thereby expediting the 
loading and unloading process.
    FMCSA's proposed definition of ``crib-type log trailer'' is based 
directly on the description of the trailer design provided in the 
patent described above. The Agency believes that the proposed 
definition accurately reflects the specific provisions of the patent 
regarding the components of the trailer design (i.e., the presence of 
stakes, bunks, a front-end structure, and a rear

[[Page 35821]]

structure) necessary to ensure the safe transport of logs without the 
use of additional safety wrapper chains or straps.\1\ The crib-type 
trailers provide adequate restraint against lateral and longitudinal 
movement. While no restraint against vertical movement is provided, 
FMCSA does not believe tiedowns are necessary, because there are no 
readily apparent circumstances under which the cargo would bounce or 
blow over the top of the bunks, or front or rear structures. The logs 
would be fully contained within structures of adequate strength thereby 
satisfying the intent of the standard. Therefore, FMCSA continues to 
believe it is appropriate to add the definition of ``crib-type log 
trailer'' as proposed in the NPRM. It is noted that the commodity 
specific rule for securing logs, Sec.  393.116, is also being amended 
to allow the use of crib type trailers. This is discussed in detail 
later in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FMCSA is also revising Sec.  393.116(b)(3) to include an 
exception to the regulation requiring tiedowns to enable motor 
carriers to use crib-type trailers, without tiedowns, provided 
specific conditions are satisfied. This issue is discussed later in 
this final rule in the section addressing the specific requirements 
of Sec.  393.116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA does not agree with DACAR's request to add the additional 
qualifier of ``coated metal'' to the definition of metal coil, as the 
Agency's definition covers metal in various surface conditions such as 
coated or oiled. However, FMCSA agrees with the suggested addition of 
``coiled rod'' to the definition of metal coil because the term 
describes a different type of metal product than the drawn wire or 
sheet metal listed in the proposed definition. FMCSA agrees with Iowa 
DOT and OSP that spools or reels of wire, cable and telephone cable 
should fall under the general definition of metal coil. Contrary to 
Verizon's contention that telephone cable be explicitly exempted, the 
Agency believes that plastic or rubber coated wire on cable spools or 
reels exceeding the 2,208 Kg (5,000 lbs) threshold specified in the 
commodity specific requirements for metal coils in Sec.  393.120 
presents the same type of risks if not properly secured. Therefore, 
FMCSA adds ``rod'' to the definition of metal coil, and expands the 
definition to include ``plastic or rubber coated electrical wire and 
communications cable.''
    2. NPRM Proposal: FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  393.7(b)(19) by 
replacing ``November 15, 1999'' with ``April 26, 2003''. (70 FR 33438)
    Comments: FMCSA received no comments regarding this amendment, 
which proposed to incorporate by reference a more up-to-date version of 
the National Association of Chain Manufacturers (NACM) publication 
titled ``Welded Steel Chain Specifications.'' At the time the NPRM was 
published, the publication dated April 26, 2003, was the most up-to-
date version of this publication. However, shortly after the NPRM was 
published, NACM issued an updated version of the subject publication 
that was adopted by its members on September 28, 2005. FMCSA has 
compared the April 2003 and the September 2005 versions of the NACM 
publication, and found that only minor amendments to the material 
composition specifications for certain chain types have been adopted. 
FMCSA has determined that these minor changes will not have any affect 
on the provisions of this final rule. Because the change from the April 
2003 to the September 2005 version simply reflects a more up-to-date 
version of the referenced NACM publication, FMCSA incorporates by 
reference the 2005 NACM standards. In addition, FMCSA similarly amends 
Section 2 of the table to Sec.  393.104(e) to maintain consistency.
    3. NPRM Proposal: FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  393.102 by revising 
paragraphs (c) and (d). (70 FR 33438)
    Comments: PFITC, FPAC, Rayonier, Georgia Pacific, Allegheny, and 
EdgeWorks proposed to revise Sec.  393.102(c)(1) regarding breaking 
strength to replace the wording ``Cargo securement devices and 
systems'' to the more specific ``Tiedowns, tiedown systems, straps, and 
strapping systems.'' These commenters contend that this change will 
ensure Sec.  393.102(c)(1) applies only to tiedown and strapping 
systems, thereby not unintentionally ruling out the use of many 
effective securement devices, such as wood blocking, nails, air bags, 
friction mats, friction between the cargo and the floor or other cargo, 
and shoring bars that are all examples of cargo securement devices and 
components of systems that do not have or need breaking strengths 
assigned by manufacturers.
    Similarly, and for the same reasons, these commenters also proposed 
that Sec.  393.102(c)(2) regarding working load limits be amended to 
only apply to tiedowns and strapping systems by revising Sec.  
393.102(c)(2) by replacing the wording ``Cargo securement devices and 
systems'' to the more specific ``Tiedowns, tiedown systems, straps, and 
strapping systems.''
    In addition, these commenters proposed a change in the wording of 
Sec.  393.102(d)(2) from ``Fills a sided vehicle'' to ``Transported in 
a sided vehicle'' to clarify that this amendment will not be 
interpreted to mean a vehicle must be completely filled from top to 
bottom, side to side, and from end to end to qualify for this 
alternative.
    OSP commented that the term ``immobilized'' in Sec.  393.102(d) and 
in Sec.  393.100(c) creates confusion, and appears to contradict the 
remainder of 393.100(c), which permits some shifting of cargo upon or 
within the vehicle, provided that the vehicle's stability or 
maneuverability is not adversely affected. Similarly, NY-DOT 
recommended amending the proposed language in Sec.  393.102(d) to 
clarify that cargo that shifts or tips, but does not affect the 
vehicle's stability and safe operation is not in violation. NY-DOT also 
noted that it appears that the word ``of'' has been mistakenly omitted 
from the phrase ``articles of cargo'' in Sec.  393.102(d).
    OSP supported FMCSA's position concerning the need to reduce the g-
force deceleration requirements to more realistically reflect the 
normal demands on cargo securement systems. OSP believes the 
enforcement community is primarily concerned that the criterion is 
enforceable and understandable to enforcement officers and CMV drivers. 
OSP states that it will be impossible for an enforcement officer 
inspecting a CMV to determine whether that particular vehicle would be 
capable of meeting the specified g-force requirements. OSP's experience 
with cargo securement enforcement suggests that drivers fail to use a 
sufficient number of tie-downs to meet the minimum requirements 
(aggregate working load limit (WLL) greater than or equal to \1/2\ the 
weight of cargo), and the tiedowns are poorly positioned or damaged. 
OSP believes the WLL formula is enforceable and fair, and supports the 
proposed change in performance standards while keeping the current 
aggregate WLL formula.
    PFITC, FPAC, Rayonier, Georgia Pacific, Allegheny, and EdgeWorks 
recommended that default breaking strength tables be added to the 
regulation if there is a ``prohibition on exceeding breaking strength 
ratings,'' regardless of whether the prohibition is related to all 
securement materials or just tiedowns and strapping systems. They 
contend that the addition of breaking strength tables will provide 
users, enforcement, and legal system personnel a necessary tool to 
determine the breaking strength of unmarked devices. The commenters 
noted that they did not have the necessary expertise to recommend the 
specifics of these tables.
    Kinedyne believes that the re-introduction of ``breaking strength'' 
into the FMCSR will reintroduce confusion that was eliminated in 1994, 
when 49

[[Page 35822]]

CFR Part 393 was revised to (1) remove all references to breaking 
strength ratings, and (2) specify that load securement devices only be 
rated by the WLL. Kinedyne recommended that FMCSA retain the 0.8 g 
deceleration in the forward direction, 0.5 g in the rearward and 
lateral directions, and that cargo securement devices should not exceed 
the WLL at these conditions. Kinedyne acknowledged that these are the 
extreme conditions of normal operations, but believes that cargo 
securement systems should be designed to restrain the cargo in exactly 
these extreme conditions. Mr. Joseph Takacs Jr. noted that breaking 
strength is a value for brand new cargo securement products used to 
establish the WLL, and does not take into consideration aging, cuts and 
wear.
    CCMTA stated that it believes there was consensus among all parties 
who participated in the development of the North American Cargo 
Securement Standard that ``Cargo being transported on the highway must 
remain secured on or within the transporting vehicle under all 
conditions expected to occur in normal driving situations and when a 
driver is responding to emergency situations, short of a crash.'' CCMTA 
believes these debates concluded successfully with consensus among 
representatives from governments and industry on performance criteria 
of 0.8 g deceleration in the forward direction and 0.5 g in the lateral 
and rearwards directions. These criteria are similar to those adopted 
in Great Britain, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. CCMTA acknowledges 
that heavy braking applications which generate 0.8 g deceleration are 
relatively rare occurrences, however, CCMTA notes that there appears to 
be little dispute that this performance is within the capability of 
most vehicles. It is CCMTA's view that ensuring the cargo securement 
system is robust enough to match the capabilities of the transport 
vehicle is not only critical to highway safety, but is entirely 
consistent with the fundamental statement of public policy interest 
outlined previously.
    CCMTA notes that in the preamble to the NPRM, FMCSA suggests that 
there should be a distinction between normal driving conditions and 
emergency situations, short of a crash from the perspective of the 
strength requirements of cargo securement systems. CCMTA does not 
support this view, and firmly believes the WLL of cargo securement 
systems should never be exceeded when subjected to forces resulting 
from both normal driving situations and when a driver is responding to 
emergency situations, short of a crash.
    CCMTA states that most manufacturers of cargo securement equipment 
advise users that the WLL of their equipment should never be exceeded. 
CCMTA refers to Section 10 of the ``Welded Steel Chain Specifications'' 
of the National Association of Chain Manufacturers, which includes the 
warning, ``Manufacturers do not accept any liability for injury or 
damage which may result from dynamic or static loads in excess of the 
working load limit or used in a manner contrary to the manufacturer's 
instructions or recommendations.''
    CCMTA does not support the approach proposed by FMCSA which 
acknowledges that the WLL of securement equipment would likely be 
exceeded whenever a driver encounters ``emergency situations short of a 
crash.'' CCMTA states that under those conditions, FMCSA is prepared to 
assume that the additional capacity required to restrain the cargo in 
emergency situations can be found in safety factors, and consequently 
the breaking strength of the equipment would not likely be exceeded. 
CCMTA disagrees with this approach, and notes that safety factors 
present for new equipment erode over time due to minor damage through 
normal usage, exposure to the environment, and aging.
    CCMTA strongly urged the FMCSA to retain the approach and wording 
contained in its current regulation, and stated that it is not prepared 
to adopt the proposed change in Canada's National Safety Code.
    WTBA and ARTBA request that FMCSA continue to clarify and emphasize 
that the performance criteria contained in Sec.  393.102(a) are not 
applicable if the provisions of the rule referenced in Sec.  393.102(d) 
are followed. WTBA notes that there is confusion regarding the 
specified performance criteria in Sec.  393.102(a) which are not 
measurable in the field, and that there are alternative means to meet 
the rule by the requirements in Sec. Sec.  393.104 through 393.136.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees with PFITC, FPAC, Rayonier, Georgia 
Pacific, Allegheny, and EdgeWorks that Sec.  393.102(c) should be 
reworded so as not to discount the use of devices such as wood 
blocking, nails, air bags, friction mats, friction between the cargo 
and the floor or other cargo, and shoring bars simply because these 
examples of cargo securement devices and components of cargo securement 
systems typically do not have a WLL or breaking strength assigned by 
manufacturers. FMCSA notes that Sec.  393.104(d) requires that material 
used as dunnage or dunnage bags, chocks, cradles, shoring bars, or used 
for blocking or bracing, must not have damage or defects which would 
compromise the effectiveness of the securement system. However, while 
commenters suggested replacing the wording ``Cargo securement devices 
and systems'' with the more specific ``Tiedowns, tiedown systems, 
straps, and strapping systems,'' the Agency amends the language to be 
consistent with language currently specified in Sec.  393.104(e) 
regarding manufacturing standards for tiedown assemblies. Specifically, 
the term ``cargo securement devices and systems'' in Sec.  
393.102(a)(i)-(ii) will be replaced with ``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.''
    While FMCSA does not believe that the proposed amendment to Sec.  
393.102(c)(2) would have resulted in confusion to enforcement personnel 
as to whether the vehicle needs to be completely filled to meet the 
criteria, the Agency amends the wording as suggested to ``Is 
transported in'' to ensure clarity of the requirement.
    FMCSA agrees with OSP and NY-DOT that use of the term 
``immobilized'' as proposed in Sec.  393.102(d)(1) could be 
misinterpreted to mean that shifting of cargo is not permitted under 
any circumstances, which (1) the Agency acknowledges is impracticable 
under real-world operating conditions, and (2) conflicts with the 
current language in Sec.  393.100(c) which states that ``cargo must be 
contained, immobilized or secured * * * to prevent shifting upon or 
within the vehicle to such an extent that the vehicle's stability or 
maneuverability is adversely affected.'' (Emphasis added) To avoid 
interpretation of the term ``immobilized'' as an absolute, and to 
maintain consistency with other sections of the regulatory text, FMCSA 
has added the qualifying language currently in Sec.  393.100(c), as 
stated above, to Sec. Sec.  393.102(c)(1) and (2).
    FMCSA agrees with the comment by NY-DOT that the Agency should 
revise Sec.  393.102(d) to replace the NPRM's ``articles cargo'' with 
``articles of cargo.'' This is an editorial correction and the final 
rule includes this change.
    FMCSA does not agree with Kinedyne that the introduction of 
breaking strength into Sec.  393.102(a) will create confusion. Breaking 
strength is readily available information included in product 
literature from tiedown manufacturers and in the publications

[[Page 35823]]

incorporated by reference under Sec.  393.104. The Agency notes that 
Kinedyne provides both working load limit and breaking strength for 
their tiedown products on its website. In most instances, the breaking 
strength would only be used by technical personnel responsible for 
designing a securement system. These individuals would not have 
difficulty looking up the information and applying it in an appropriate 
manner. However, from a practical standpoint, it is unlikely that 
drivers and roadside enforcement personnel would attempt to assess 
compliance with the performance criteria under Sec.  393.102. 
Generally, motor carriers are not required to conduct testing of cargo 
securement systems to determine compliance with the performance 
requirements of Sec.  393.102(a) and/or Sec.  393.102(c), and Sec.  
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, is considered to meet the performance 
criteria.
    FMCSA agrees with the comment by Mr. Takacs that the working load 
limit is based on the breaking strength of a cargo securement device. 
Mr. Takacs expressed concern that references to a cargo securement 
product's breaking strength will be confusing or misinterpreted because 
persons may not be aware that the breaking strength is a value for new 
products, and does not take into consideration the effects of aging, 
cuts, and wear. As noted above, FMCSA does not believe that this 
language will be confusing, and the Agency notes that Sec.  393.104(c) 
states that ``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 such as, but not limited to, cracks or 
cuts that will adversely affect their performance for cargo securement 
purposes, including reducing the working load limit.'' As such, any 
components of a cargo securement system exhibiting these defects must 
be removed from service.
    While numerous commenters opposed FMCSA's proposed amendments to 
Sec.  393.102 to distinguish between the performance requirements for 
cargo securement systems using both working load limit (under 
``normal'' operating conditions) and breaking strength (under the most 
extreme operating conditions short of a crash), the Agency continues to 
believe that these amendments (1) are needed to resolve an existing 
internal inconsistency in the regulatory language, and (2) do not 
result in a reduced level of safety with respect to cargo securement 
systems. Working load limit is defined in Sec.  393.5 as the maximum 
load that may be applied to a component of a cargo securement system 
during normal service (emphasis added). However, Sec.  393.102(c) 
currently requires that cargo securement devices and systems 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 a (1) 0.8 g deceleration in the forward 
direction, (2) 0.5 acceleration in the rearward direction, and (3) 0.5 
acceleration in the lateral direction, all applied separately. FMCSA 
continues to believe that 0.8 g deceleration in the forward direction 
and 0.5 g acceleration in the lateral direction do not represent 
``normal'' operating conditions. The conditions described above more 
closely align with the most extreme operating conditions a vehicle may 
experience short of a crash, and real-world studies have shown these 
conditions occur infrequently. The discussion that follows presents the 
Agency's rationale for determining that the conditions listed above do 
not represent ``normal'' operating conditions.
    The North American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulation is 
based on work conducted under the North American Load Security Research 
Project, initiated in the early 1990s 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 
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, large metal coils, concrete 
pipe, intermodal containers, and other commodities.
    In an effort to address the concerns raised by commenters regarding 
the distinction between ``normal'' operating conditions and the most 
extreme operating conditions short of a crash, FMCSA revisited the 
findings presented in a Summary Report that was prepared at the 
conclusion of the Load Security Research Project described above. 
Section 2 of the Summary Report, Definition of Terms, defines ``Normal 
Driving'' as ``the maximum acceleration that a driver might expect from 
hard braking or a turning maneuver (emphasis added).'' The Summary 
Report also noted that an understanding of the performance of vehicles 
within the highway system was necessary to be able to place the 
research findings in context, and provided the following discussion:

    About 85% of all brake applications for heavy vehicles occur 
during normal driving, and result in decelerations under 0.19 g. A 
deceleration above 0.3 g is quite a hard stop. Only about 0.11% of 
all brake applications exceed 0.4 g. (Emphasis added)

    The discussion above, as presented in the Load Security Summary 
Report, comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 
(NHTSA) report ``An In-Service Evaluation of the Reliability, 
Maintainability, and Durability of Antilock Braking Systems (ABS) for 
Heavy Truck Tractors,'' DOT HS 807 846, March 1992, which provides data 
concerning routine brake application pressures and the resulting 
forces. NHTSA used on-board electronic data monitors/recorders 
installed on 216 vehicles (200 ABS equipped truck tractors, and 16 
control vehicles). The data were accumulated over nearly 600,000 hours 
and 18 million miles of tractor operation. More than 13 million brake 
applications occurred during that time period, at all times of the year 
and during all types of weather. Brake pressures of 15 pounds per 
square inch (psi) or less (light braking) accounted for approximately 
84 percent of the total braking time recorded. An additional 10 percent 
of brake applications were between 15 and 20 psi and almost all the 
remaining brake applications were below 45 psi (moderate to hard 
braking). Only 0.02 percent of the total braking time was at pressures 
of 75 psi or greater. Eighty-five percent of the braking resulted in 
0.19 g, or less, decelerations indicating light braking, and another 
14.7 percent resulted in moderate-to-hard braking from 0.19 to 0.40 g. 
Importantly, (1) deceleration levels above 0.40 g were only encountered 
in 0.11 percent of brake applications, and (2) Figure 4.2 of the NHTSA 
report (Histogram of Braking Deceleration Levels for the 200 ABS-
Equipped Tractors Over the Two-Year Period of the Test) indicates that 
no deceleration levels above 0.47 g were measured in the more than 13 
million brake applications recorded.
    For the purposes of the NHTSA study, a ``major'' ABS braking event 
was considered to have occurred if at least one wheel speed decreased 
to 80 percent or less of vehicle speed (i.e., 20 percent wheel slip 
occurred) during a brake application and then increased speed 
coincident with solenoid operation at that wheel, and this

[[Page 35824]]

occurred for more than 4 cycles. This situation was considered 
indicative of conditions in which the ABS was cycling often enough to 
indicate the presence of either very slippery road surface conditions 
or very high brake pressures (consistent with maximum braking effort 
stops); conditions potentially conducive to a crash. Using this 
definition, the test ABSs were found to actuate approximately 10 times 
a year per truck tractor.
    Concerns have been raised that while only 0.11 percent of the more 
than 13 million brake applications recorded in the NHTSA study exceeded 
0.4 g, this still translates into more than 14,000 brake applications 
that would have exceeded the 0.4 g threshold proposed by FMCSA for 
normal operating conditions. As noted above, however, Figure 4.2 of the 
NHTSA report clearly demonstrates that the brake applications exceeding 
0.4 g did not approach the 0.8 g threshold, but rather were measured to 
be between 0.4 g to a maximum of 0.47 g. Further, only approximately 
4000 ``major'' ABS braking events (200 ABS-equipped truck tractors x 10 
ABS actuations/year x 2 year study), indicating conditions potentially 
conducive to a crash, were recorded over the course of the study. Even 
if all of these 4,000 ``major'' ABS braking events were attributable to 
very high brake pressure (consistent with maximum braking effort stops, 
as opposed to very slippery road surface conditions), this represents 
only 0.03 percent of the more than 13 million brake applications 
measured over the course of the 2-year study. In other words, 
approximately 99.97 percent of the brake applications measured in the 
NHTSA study can be considered to have been made under ``normal'' 
operating conditions--and not under emergency conditions that would 
actuate the ABS. From the above, it is clear that the current 
performance criteria of Sec.  393.102(a) do not represent normal 
service or operating conditions. Specifically, a deceleration in the 
range of 0.8-0.85 g in the forward direction is not a routine force 
that commercial vehicles are subjected to on a regular basis, but 
rather (1) ``the highest deceleration likely for an empty or lightly 
loaded vehicle with an anti-lock brake system, with all brakes properly 
adjusted, and warmed to provide optimal braking,'' as noted in the 
September 2002 final rule, and (2) one that did not occurr in the over 
13 million brake applications as noted in the Summary Report. The same 
may be said of a 0.5 g acceleration in a lateral direction, as the 
Summary Report states that ``the typical lateral acceleration while 
driving a curve or ramp at the posted advisory speed is in the range of 
0.05-0.17 g.''
    Given the above, and considering that the Load Security Summary 
Report defined ``normal driving'' as ``the maximum acceleration that a 
driver might expect from a hard braking or a turning maneuver, FMCSA 
does not consider the performance criteria of Sec.  393.102(a) to 
represent ``normal'' service. It follows that the current reference in 
Sec.  393.102(c) that cargo securement devices and systems must be 
designed, installed, and maintained to ensure that the working load 
limit of these devices are not exceeded under the conditions listed in 
Sec.  393.102(a) is inconsistent with actual operational demands and 
needs. Instead, because the Summary Report indicates (1) a deceleration 
above 0.3 g is quite a hard stop, (2) deceleration levels above 0.4 g 
were only encountered in 0.11 percent of brake applications, and (3) 
that normal driving conditions are characterized as being those where 
the maximum acceleration that a driver might expect from hard braking 
or a turning maneuver, FMCSA amends Sec.  393.102 to resolve this 
internal inconsistency in the regulatory language.
    However, instead of requiring that the forces acting on tiedown 
assemblies not exceed the working load limit for those devices under a 
0.4 g deceleration in the forward direction as proposed in the NPRM, 
FMCSA believes that given the discussion above, it is more appropriate 
to adopt a 0.435 g threshold. To address the small percentage of brake 
applications recorded in the NHTSA study that exceeded 0.4 g, but were 
not considered a ``major'' ABS event that resulted in the actuation of 
the ABS, adoption of a 0.435 g threshold will provide an added margin 
of safety over that which would be achieved through the 0.4 g threshold 
proposed in the NPRM. At the same time, adoption of a 0.435 g threshold 
will maintain consistency with the minimum requirements for braking 
force currently specified in Sec.  393.52(d) for motor vehicles or 
combinations of motor vehicles.
    Specifically, this final rule requires that cargo securement 
devices and systems be designed, installed, and maintained to ensure 
that the (1) maximum forces acting on the devices or systems do not 
exceed the manufacturer's breaking strength rating under the conditions 
currently listed in Sec.  393.102(a), and (2) forces acting on the 
devices or systems under normal operating conditions do not exceed the 
working load limit for the devices under (1) 0.435 g deceleration in 
the forward direction, (2) 0.5 acceleration in the rearward direction, 
and (3) 0.25 acceleration in the lateral direction, all applied 
separately. It is important to note that FMCSA has not eliminated the 
requirement that cargo securement systems and devices not fail under 
the maximum performance capabilities of the vehicle; rather, the Agency 
does not believe that it is necessary that these cargo securement 
systems or devices be prohibited from exceeding their stated working 
load limits under these extreme conditions.
    FMCSA certainly agrees with CCMTA's concerns regarding the safe 
transport of cargo on the nation's highways. At the same time, we 
continue to believe that the use of working load limits of securement 
devices to determine whether the cargo securement system can withstand 
0.8 g deceleration in the forward direction under all conditions, 
including emergency braking short of a crash, would result in a 
potentially burdensome requirement on the industry. Any safety benefits 
that would result from such a requirement, if benefits exist at all, 
would likely be grossly disproportionate to the costs of the 
requirement. If FMCSA retains the requirement that the working load 
limit must not be exceeded under 0.8 g, the Agency would need to revise 
Sec.  393.106(d) to require that the aggregate WLL be equal to the 
weight of the load. This change would be required because Sec.  
393.106(d) indicates that cargo secured in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
393.104-393.136 is considered as meeting the performance criteria. This 
is clearly not the case with the current rule. The change to Sec.  
393.106(d) would essentially double the number of tiedowns required. 
The aggregate WLL needed to withstand 0.8 g is far in excess of the 
value needed to fulfill the requirement for the aggregate WLL to be 
equivalent to one half the weight of the articles of cargo being 
secured. In this regard, FMCSA's 2005 NPRM presented a solution to the 
inconsistency that retains performance requirements consistent with the 
original research on this subject and the Model Regulation. The 
performance requirements are intended to both (1) prevent the 
securement system from failing under 0.8 g deceleration and (2) to 
ensure that the WLL for securement devices is rarely exceeded under 
routine, day-to-day operations. FMCSA notes that none of the commenters 
provide an alternative that would enable the Agency to resolve the 
internal

[[Page 35825]]

inconsistency while achieving the goals of the Model Regulation.
    The calculation of the aggregate WLL is the most readily 
enforceable portion of the performance requirements because motor 
carrier managers, drivers and enforcement personnel typically cannot 
test the performance capability of the cargo securement systems or 
devices in use on a vehicle during the loading process, or during a 
roadside inspection. A change in the aggregate WLL value necessary to 
meet the more stringent performance requirements of 0.8 g in the 
forward direction and 0.5 g in the lateral and rearward direction would 
result in motor carriers needing more tiedowns to secure the cargo. 
CCMTA did not address or provide comment regarding this issue.
    Given the discussion provided above, and in an effort to make the 
performance criteria section of the regulation more easily understood, 
FMCSA amends Sec.  393.102, consistent with the June 2005 NPRM, with 
the minor change to the 0.435 g deceleration performance requirement in 
the forward direction as opposed to the 0.4 g threshold proposed in the 
NPRM.
    FMCSA agrees with WTBA and ARTBA that compliance with the specified 
performance requirements of 393.102(a) and 393.102(c) cannot be 
determined in the field, however when cargo securement techniques are 
evaluated, whether the commodity specific cargo securement requirements 
are followed, or the general requirements for cargo are used as a 
baseline, consideration must be given to the performance requirements 
of 393.102(a) and 393.102(c). The Agency stresses that the cargo 
securement requirements as identified in 393.106, and 393.110 through 
393.136 are the minimum requirements. Nothing in the rule prohibits 
motor carriers from using additional devices.
    4. NPRM Proposal: FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  393.104 by removing 
paragraph (f)(4) and redesignating paragraph (f)(5) as (f)(4), 
replacing ``November 15, 1999'' with ``April 26, 2003'' after the 
publication title ``National Association of Chain Manufacturers' Welded 
Steel Chain Specifications,'' and by revising paragraphs (b) and (c). 
(70 FR 33438)
    Comments: PFITC, FPAC, Rayonier, Georgia-Pacific, and Allegheny 
requested that Sec.  393.104(a) and Sec.  393.104(c) be reworded for 
clarification because of the differences in the performances 
requirements listed between Sec.  393.102(a) and Sec.  393.102(c)(2). 
These commenters contend that failure to make this change may lead to 
(1) significantly reduced load securement requirements for all cargo, 
possibly resulting in danger to carrier personnel and the general 
public, and (2) possible confusion to personnel who plan load 
securement systems, load cargo, transport cargo, and enforcement 
personnel as to which performance criteria (g-forces) of Sec.  393.102 
must be met. These commenters suggested that the reference to Sec.  
393.102 in both Sec.  393.104(a) and Sec.  393.104(c) be changed to 
specifically reference the requirements of Sec.  393.102(a).
    DOE agreed that the FMCSA proposal to rescind Sec.  393.104(f)(4) 
would not have an adverse impact on safety, but DOE noted that the 
inference that it is acceptable to attach tiedowns to rub rails appears 
to be in conflict with requirements for anchor point and the ``North 
American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulation.'' DOE and Mr. 
Takacs noted that the model regulation defines a rub rail as a rail 
along the side of a vehicle that protects the sides of the vehicle from 
impacts, and rub rails are not normally rated by manufacturers. They 
suggested that given the abuse rub rails are subject to, it would 
appear they would not be adequate as an anchor point, especially for 
aluminum bed trailers whose aluminum rub rails may bend and crack 
easily. They argued that, because the stake pockets located on the 
sides of flatbed trailers are the only points rated by manufacturers 
for load securement purposes, using rub rails as anchor points is not 
in the best interest of cargo securement safety.
    EMC stated that they and other leading trailer manufacturers have 
redesigned their platform trailers and related accessories to include 
features designed to allow consistent compliance with the current rule. 
EMC identified these features as (i) use of winch tracks and sliding 
winches on either side of the trailer; (ii) the provision of hook-
retainer clips/brackets designed to be slidably mounted on the winch 
track (on the opposite side of the trailer relative to the winch) and 
designed to receive and positively capture the flat-hook or other hook 
located at the distal end of the cargo retaining strap; (iii) the 
development of low-profile sliding winches that can be positioned in a 
forward location on the winch track without interfering with the tires 
of the tractor; and (iv) the inclusion of tracks in the trailer deck 
intended to provide for adjustable positioning of chain tie-down 
plates. EMC stated that these features allow cargo tie-down straps to 
be positioned inside the rub rails as required by the current rule 
Sec.  393.104(f)(4). EMC believes that FMCSA's finding that it is not 
possible to achieve uniform and consistent enforcement of Sec.  
393.104(f)(4) is due to the fact that some carriers have not upgraded 
their fleets to include modern trailers with these state-of-the-art 
securement features, and that many trailer manufacturers have not made 
efforts to provide equipment that aids in compliance with the final 
rule. EMC stated that they and other trailer manufacturers have 
demonstrated that compliance with the requirements of Sec.  
393.104(f)(4) is practicable, and have expended significant resources 
to comply with the current rule. EMC states that revising the rule as 
proposed favors manufacturers and carriers who have not sought to 
comply with the current rule and, as a result, have unfairly avoided 
significant time and expense burdens. EMC proposed maintaining the 
current rule, but asked FMCSA to consider a grandfather provision to 
exempt older trailers from the requirements of 393.104(f)(4).
    Kinedyne also recommended retaining the existing Sec.  
393.104(f)(4). However, Kinedyne recommended that if this section is 
eliminated, then the rub rail should be re-identified as a ``securement 
rail'' and needs to have an established WLL rating by the trailer 
manufacturer per Sec.  393.108.
    CCMTA acknowledges the compliance and enforcement difficulties of 
Sec.  393.104(f)(4) which have arisen with the inclusion of the term 
``whenever practicable'' with respect to placement of tiedowns inboard 
of rub rails. CCMTA continues to believe that tiedowns should be routed 
behind rub rails whenever possible. CCMTA proposes that this 
requirement be phased in over a longer period to allow industry to make 
adjustments in both the training programs and equipment. CCMTA believes 
the CVSA Out-of-Service criteria, which provides detailed explanations 
of unacceptable conditions, provides more practical guidance with 
respect to damaged or weakened components than is specified in Sec.  
393.104.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees with the PFITC, FPAC, Rayonier, 
Georgia-Pacific, and Allegheny comment that there are two performance 
requirements for load securement devices, specifically Sec.  
393.102(c)(2) which ensures the adequate performance of these devices 
during normal operating conditions, and Sec.  393.102(a), which ensures 
adequate performance of these devices during all conditions. However, 
the agency does not believe that this will impact cargo securement 
safety because most motor carriers are using the calculation of the 
required aggregate working load limit to

[[Page 35826]]

determine the minimum number of tiedowns required to secure their load.
    With respect to the comments from DOE, Kinedyne, and Mr. Takacs 
recommending that rub rails have specified WLLs in order to be used as 
cargo securement anchorages, FMCSA notes that the 2002 final rule did 
not include a requirement that anchor points be rated and marked. The 
2002 final rule noted that while the Agency agreed with the basic 
principle of rating and marking of anchor points, there was 
insufficient data to support establishing manufacturing standards at 
that time. Any such amendments to the regulatory language to adopt 
provisions requiring the rating and/or marking of anchor points are 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    FMCSA appreciates the comments provided by EMC, and agrees that 
vehicle manufacturers can incorporate features that assist the vehicle 
operators in complying with the cargo securement regulations. The 
Agency believes that in many instances, the nature of the cargo 
dictates the ability of the cargo securement devices to meet the 
existing requirements of Sec.  393.104(f)(4). As discussed in the NPRM, 
however, State enforcement personnel and motor carriers expressed 
difficulties in achieving uniform and consistent enforcement of the 
regulation. Therefore, the Agency rescinds Sec.  393.104(f)(4) as 
proposed.
    5. NPRM Proposal: FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  393.106 to revise 
paragraphs (a) and (d). (70 FR 33438-33439)
    Comments: PFITC, FPAC, Rayonier, Georgia-Pacific, and Allegheny 
provided comments recommending a change to add friction mats to the 
list of securement materials, identified in 393.106(b) to remove 
potential for misinterpretation by the enforcement, carrier, shipping 
and legal communities.
    OSP concurred with FMCSA's proposed revision of Sec.  393.106(d), 
but asked the Agency to clarify the term ``attachment point.'' OSP 
requested clarification as to whether the tiedown must be attached to a 
designated point of attachment on the cargo, or simply anywhere (i.e., 
on the tracks of a bulldozer) as long as the attachment is secure.
    Iowa DOT commented that additional language is necessary in Sec.  
393.106(d) to ensure that load securement devices are somewhat evenly 
matched, and that securement capability be evenly distributed to the 
cargo being secured. Iowa DOT suggested that adoption of language that 
would ensure that there is adequate securement in each of the forward, 
rearward, and lateral directions.
    CCMTA is opposed to the proposed change regarding the determination 
of the aggregate WLL. CCMTA contends that the proposal will reduce the 
contribution of direct tiedowns to the determination of aggregate WLL 
by 50%. CCMTA believes that this represents a fundamental change from 
the Model Regulation completed in May 1999, and will conflict with 
Canada's National Safety Code which states:
     The ``aggregate working load limit'' is the sum of one-
half of the working load limit for each end section of a tiedown that 
is attached to an anchor point
     The National Safety Code defines anchor points as ``part 
of the structure, fitting or attachment on a vehicle or cargo to which 
a tiedown is attached''

CCMTA believes that direct tiedowns that attach to cargo provide a much 
more reliable and predictable level of securement than indirect 
tiedowns.

    WTBA/ARTBA requests that the rule be modified to include 100% of 
the WLL of direct tiedowns to be used in determining whether the 
requirements of the rule are met, as opposed to the 50% currently 
specified. WTBA/ARTBA contends that the current rule encourages the use 
of indirect tiedowns, and WTBA/ARTBA believes in the context of heavy 
equipment and wheeled and tracked equipment that this approach 
undermines the goal of safe transport of this equipment. WTBA believes 
that direct tiedowns hold the equipment in a stationary position, while 
indirect tiedowns allow for the equipment to move.
    FMCSA Response: In response to the comments regarding the 
definition of ``attachment point'' presented by Iowa DOT, the Agency 
notes that Sec.  393.5 defines ``anchor point'' as ``part of the 
structure, fitting, or attachment on a vehicle or article of cargo to 
which a tiedown is attached.'' Based on this definition, an anchor 
point can be part of the structure, and does not need to be a 
designated attachment point. With respect to the concerns from Iowa DOT 
about loads being unevenly secured, FMCSA notes that Sec.  393.100(c) 
requires that cargo must be contained, immobilized, or secured to 
prevent shifting upon or within the vehicle to such an extent that the 
vehicle's stability or maneuverability is adversely affected. Although 
mismatching of tiedowns could potentially result in real-world 
securement issues, the Agency believes Sec.  393.106(d) concerning 
aggregate WLL deters such practices for what is commonly referred to as 
direct tiedowns. The rule effectively requires that tiedowns on 
opposite sides of the load have similar ratings in order to meet the 
minimum aggregate WLL.
    In addressing the comment from OSP regarding attachment points, and 
the related comments from CCMTA and WTBA/ARTBA regarding the 
calculation of the aggregate WLL, FMCSA revisited the research reports 
that serve as the basis for the Model Regulation. First, the Summary 
Report defines ``anchor point'' as ``part of the structure of a 
vehicle, or a device firmly attached to that structure, that is 
designed or commonly used to attach a tiedown assembly.'' From this, it 
is clear that an anchor point is part of the vehicle, and not on the 
article of cargo. Second, Section 5.7.1 of the CCMTA Load Security 
Research Project Summary Report notes that tiedowns serve one of two 
purposes; they either (1) provide direct resistance to an external 
acceleration, or (2) increase somewhat the coefficient of friction 
between the cargo and the deck of the vehicle. The definition of anchor 
point, along with an understanding of direct and indirect tiedowns--and 
their contribution to the calculation of aggregate WLL--are discussed 
in greater detail below.
    While the definition of anchor point in the Load Security Research 
Project Summary Report clearly refers to a point on the vehicle 
structure, the definition of anchor point in the subsequent Draft Model 
Regulation was revised to ``part of the structure, fitting or 
attachment on a vehicle or cargo to which a tiedown is attached.'' 
(Emphasis added) It is not clear to FMCSA why this revision was 
adopted, but the revised definition of anchor point (to include a point 
on the vehicle or article of cargo) has been retained in each of the 
subsequent FMCSA rulemaking documents, revisions to the Model 
Regulation, and the National Safety Code. This change in terminology, 
in conjunction with related issues concerning tiedowns discussed below, 
results in significant changes in calculating the aggregate WLL of a 
cargo securement system that appear to depart from the original intent 
of the underlying research and the May 1999 version of the Draft Model 
Regulation.
    The Summary Report states that ``tiedowns placed at a shallow angle 
to the horizontal that are attached at one end to the vehicle and 
directly at the other to an article, or pass through an article and are 
attached on each end to the vehicle, provide an effective direct 
resistance to forces arising from an external acceleration.'' This 
served as the basis for the definition of ``direct tiedown'' in the 
North American Cargo

[[Page 35827]]

Securement Standard Draft Model Regulation, dated May 1999, which 
defined ``direct tiedown'' as ``a tiedown that is intended to provide 
direct resistance to potential shift of an article.'' mportantly, for 
the purposes of calculating the aggregate WLL of a cargo securement 
system, the Draft Model Regulation stated:

    For the purposes of calculation, the aggregate working load 
limit of all direct tiedowns used to restrain articles is based on 
the sum of:
    One-half of the working load limit of each direct tiedown that 
is connected between the vehicle and the article of cargo.
    The working load limit of each direct tiedown that is attached 
to the vehicle, passes through or around an article of cargo, or is 
attached to it, and then is again attached to the vehicle.

    The Summary Report states that ``transverse tiedowns that pass 
across an article and are attached to each side of the vehicle simply 
increase somewhat the coefficient of friction between the cargo and the 
deck.'' This served as the basis for the definition of ``indirect 
tiedown'' in the North American Cargo Securement Standard Draft Model 
Regulation, dated May 1999, i.e., ``a tiedown whose tension is intended 
to increase the pressure of an article or stack of articles on the deck 
of the vehicle.'' Importantly, for the purposes of calculating the 
aggregate WLL of a cargo securement system, the Draft Model Regulation 
stated:

    For the purposes of calculation, the aggregate working load 
limit of all indirect tiedowns used to restrain articles is based on 
the sum of the working load limits of each indirect tiedown.

    FMCSA acknowledges there has been confusion in recent years 
regarding the definitions of ``direct'' and ``indirect'' tiedowns, and 
regarding the contribution of each toward the calculation of the 
aggregate WLL of a cargo securement system. During the notice-and-
comment rulemaking process, FMCSA proposed certain requirements in the 
2000 NPRM that would have necessitated the distinction between what 
were referred to as ``direct tiedowns'' and ``indirect tiedowns.'' 
After reviewing the docket comments, the Agency attempted to adopt a 
more straightforward approach in the 2002 final rule for calculating 
the aggregate WLL, while preserving the potential safety benefits of 
making the distinction between the two types of tiedowns. While the 
Agency believes that the language adopted in the 2002 final rule was 
easier to understand than that proposed in the 2000 NPRM, it was 
clear--based on numerous telephone inquiries from FMCSA field offices, 
State enforcement agencies, and industry groups--that the intent of 
Sec.  393.106(d) was still not easily understood. The 2005 NRPM 
attempted to amend the language to provide an effective approach for 
adding working load limits for individual tiedowns in a cargo 
securement system that, at the same time, yields the same answer as the 
regulatory language in the 2002 final rule. It is important to note 
that throughout each iteration of the cargo securement rulemaking, it 
has been the intent of the Agency to maintain consistency with the 
original Draft Model Regulation.
    Specifically, the 2005 NPRM proposed to simplify the formula for 
determining the aggregate WLL for tiedowns to be the sum of (1) one-
half the working load limit of each tiedown that goes from an anchor 
point on the vehicle to an attachment point on an article of cargo, and 
(2) the working load limit for each tiedown that goes from an anchor 
point on the vehicle, through, over or around the cargo and then 
attaches to another anchor point on the vehicle.
    However, CCMTA contends that the above proposal would reduce the 
contribution of direct tiedowns to the determination of aggregate WLL 
by 50 percent. CCMTA contends that this represents a fundamental change 
from the approach proposed in the May 1999 Draft Model Regulation and 
would establish a serious conflict with the provisions of Canada's 
National Safety Code which state that the ``aggregate working load 
limit is the sum of one-half of the working load limit for each end 
section of a tiedown that is attached to an anchor point.'' Because 
anchor points can be either on the vehicle or cargo, CCMTA contends 
that the contribution of a direct tiedown to the aggregate WLL is the 
full WLL of that tiedown.
    FMCSA believes the CCMTA comment above is inconsistent with the 
provisions of the original Draft Model Regulation. Whereas CCMTA 
indicates a direct tiedown should be credited with the full WLL of that 
tiedown toward the aggregate WLL for that cargo securement system, the 
Draft Model Regulation states that each tiedown connected between the 
vehicle and the article of cargo contributed one-half of that tiedown's 
WLL toward the aggregate WLL for the system. This is likely a result of 
the revisions to the definition of anchor point, which initially 
referred only to a point on the vehicle, but now refers to a point on 
the vehicle or the article of cargo. While CCMTA contends that FMCSA 
has reduced the contribution of direct tiedowns to the determination of 
aggregate WLL by 50 percent, in fact, CCMTA has doubled the 
contribution of such tiedowns. FMCSA is not aware of any research or 
analysis to support this departure from the provisions of the Draft 
Model Regulation.
    The Draft Model Regulation stated that in the case of direct 
tiedowns that attach to the vehicle, pass through or around an article 
of cargo, or is attached to it, and then again attached to the vehicle, 
the full WLL of that tiedown would count toward the aggregate WLL for 
the system. Given that the Draft Model Regulation clearly addressed 
this scenario under the heading of direct tiedowns, and that direct 
tiedowns are defined as those tiedowns that provide direct resistance 
to forces arising from an external acceleration, it is unclear to FMCSA 
why the full WLL of such tiedowns were considered to contribute to the 
aggregate WLL for that system, provided that the tiedown attached back 
to the vehicle at or near the original point of attachment of the 
tiedown. Otherwise, if it attached to the other side of the vehicle, it 
would have to be considered an indirect tiedown under the definitions 
provided. FMCSA believes that it follows that all direct tiedowns 
should be considered to contribute equally to the aggregate WLL of a 
system. If the tiedown fails in either of these instances, the article 
of cargo will not be secured at that point. Given the above, FMCSA 
believes that for the purposes of calculation, each tiedown that is 
attached to the vehicle, passes through or around the article of cargo, 
and then is again attached the vehicle on the same side should 
contribute one-half of that tiedown's WLL toward the aggregate WLL of 
the system.
    The proposed language in the 2005 NPRM regarding ``indirect 
tiedowns'' is consistent with the language in the Draft Model 
Regulation, in that the full working load limit of each tiedown that 
goes from an anchor point on the vehicle, through, over or around the 
cargo and then attaches to another anchor point on the vehicle counts 
toward the calculation of the aggregate WLL for that system. FMCSA will 
add clarifying language to Sec.  393.106(d) make sure that it is clear 
that in these instances, the tiedown must attach to the vehicle, go 
through, over, or around the cargo, and attach to another anchor point 
on the other side of the vehicle.
    In summary, FMCSA believes that CCMTA's contentions that the 
amendments proposed by FMCSA regarding the calculation of aggregate WLL 
are inappropriate and do not follow the provisions of the Draft Model 
Regulation are without basis. Further,

[[Page 35828]]

FMCSA believes that changes to the definition of anchor point have been 
introduced into both the Draft Model Regulation and the National Safety 
Code that (1) significantly alter the calculation of the aggregate 
working load limit for some tiedowns, and (2) represent a significant 
departure from the provisions of the underlying research and the 
provisions of the initial Draft Model Regulation.
    Given the above, FMCSA amends Sec.  393.106(d) to clarify the 
formula for determining the aggregate working load limit for tiedowns, 
consistent with the intent and provisions of both The Model Regulations 
and previous Agency guidance.
    6. NPRM Proposal: FMCSA proposed to revise the title of Sec.  
393.108. (70 FR 33439)
    Comments: FMCSA received a number of comments specifically relating 
to the requirements for friction mats under Sec.  393.108. However, the 
NPRM only proposed to amend the title of Sec.  393.108 to more 
accurately reflect the role of friction mats in a cargo securement 
system, and did not specifically address any of its associated 
requirements. As such, any discussion of the comments to the NPRM in 
this area are outside the scope of this rulemaking, and will be 
addressed in the ongoing discussions in the North American Cargo 
Securement Harmonization Committee (NACSHC) and/or future rulemakings. 
The title of Sec.  393.108 will be amended as proposed.
    7. NPRM Proposal: FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  393.110 by revising 
paragraphs (a) and (c). (70 FR 33439)
    Comments: DACAR contends that the proposed revision to Sec.  
393.110(a) and (c) will lead to confusion. DACAR believes that there is 
a perception that metal coils or coiled steel rod on pallets do not 
need to be secured.
    FMCSA Response: Sections 393.110(a) and (c) are being revised as 
proposed to be consistent with the intent of the 2002 final rule. These 
revisions are editorial in nature. FMCSA is not aware of any ongoing 
confusion regarding these requirements, given that the regulations have 
been in effect for over 2 years.
    8. NPRM Proposal: FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  393.114 by revising 
paragraph (b). (70 FR 33439)
    Comments: FMCSA did not receive any comments opposing the proposed 
amendment, and incorporates the amended language as proposed in the 
NPRM.
    9. NPRM Proposal: FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  393.116 by revising 
paragraph (b)(3), inserting a new paragraph (b)(4) and revising 
paragraph (e). (70 FR 33439)
    Comments: PFITC, FPAC, Rayonier, Georgia-Pacific, and Allegheny 
agree with the proposed revision of Sec.  393.116(e)(2)(i) concerning 
the use of wrappers for securement of logs, but believe that the 
wording proposed by FMCSA might be misinterpreted to mean that only one 
``wrapper'' is required. These commenters propose that the Agency 
revise the wording to ensure it is clear that a minimum of two wrappers 
are required.
    FRA agrees with the proposed revisions to Sec.  393.116(e)(2)(i), 
but recommends the deletion of the requirement in Sec.  393.116(e)(1) 
calling for ``vehicle end structure,'' noting that neither rapid 
acceleration nor emergency braking will cause short logs to fall off a 
trailer from the rear stack of logs during transport when secured by 
one tiedown per stack.
    CREA requests that Sec.  393.116 be modified to clarify the 
requirements for the transportation of longwood or power poles on 
utility framed vehicles such as bucket trucks and digger derricks. 
These vehicles have two cradles or bunks and are secured with a tiedown 
at each cradle. The typical length of pole is 35 feet, and CREA states 
that under current regulations, several Ports of Entry have required 
five tiedowns for these 35 foot poles. CREA requests that 393.116 be 
clarified to allow power poles to be transported on vehicles with the 
same requirement of longwood and requiring only two tiedowns for poles 
cradled in two or more bunks
    CCMTA noted a number of concerns with the Agency's proposed 
amendments to Sec.  393.116. CCMTA does not support the proposed change 
to Sec.  393.116(b)(3)(i), and notes that it will continue to require 
tiedowns to be used on such trailers in Canada. CCMTA supports the 
proposed change to Sec.  393.116(b)(4) for logs loaded lengthwise, but 
believes further discussion with industry is required on the 
practicality of applying this provision to logs loaded crosswise. CCMTA 
supports the proposed clarification to 393.116(e)(2)(ii) that tiedowns 
used as wrappers do not need to be attached to the vehicle. However, 
CCMTA believes this provision should only apply to logs transported on 
pole trailers.
    WCLA/WTA suggested that Sec.  393.116(e)(2) be revised to 
specifically apply to longwood and shortwood. WCLA/WTA contends that 
there is no discernible reason why the use of wrappers and standards as 
a means of securing loads of shortwood should be prohibited given that 
the use of wrappers is (1) currently allowed for the transportation of 
logs on pole trailers (Sec.  393.116(f)), and (2) proposed for the 
securement of longwood in the NPRM (Sec.  393.116(e)(2)(ii)).
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA understands the concern raised by the PFITC, 
FPAC, Rayonier, Georgia-Pacific, and Allegheny, and agrees that the 
proposed clarification of Sec.  393.116(e)(2)(i) that would specify 
that at least two wrappers must be used to secure longwood will make 
Sec.  393.116(e)(2)(ii) consistent with the proposed language of Sec.  
393.116(e)(2)(i) which requires at least 2 tiedowns for effective 
securement of longwood. FMCSA includes the revised wording in the final 
rule.
    With regard to FRA's suggestion to delete the requirement for a 
``vehicle end structure'' in Sec.  393.116(e)(1), the Agency notes that 
the use of only one tiedown or wrapper is predicated on the requirement 
that the logs in any stack are blocked in the front by a front-end 
structure strong enough to restrain the load, or another stack of logs, 
and blocked in the rear by another stack of logs or vehicle end 
structure. However, because the definition of shortwood includes logs 
up to 16 feet in length, hauling shortwood under the general cargo 
securement rule would require a minimum of 3 tiedowns per stack, if the 
aggregate working load limit requirement could be achieved with only 3 
tiedown assemblies. While adherence to the general cargo securement 
rule would require 3 tiedowns as above, adoption of the proposed 
revision to delete the requirement for a ``vehicle end structure'' in 
Sec.  393.116(e)(1) would permit the same load to be secured with only 
1 tiedown. FMCSA does not believe that shortwood, up to 16 feet in 
length, can be adequately secured with only 1 tiedown without a vehicle 
end structure, and therefore does not believe that it is appropriate to 
eliminate the requirement for the vehicle end structure as suggested by 
FRA.
    FMCSA understands the concern of the CREA, and does not believe 
that the existing requirements specified for longwood in Sec.  393.116 
prohibit their application to the transportation of power poles on 
bucket trucks and digger derricks provided that all the applicable 
requirements of Sec.  393.116 are met. However, to eliminate any future 
uncertainties regarding the applicability of Sec.  393.116 with respect 
to utility poles, FMCSA is revising the definition of longwood in Sec.  
393.5 as follows:

    Longwood. All logs, including utility poles, that are not 
shortwood, i.e., are over 4.9 m (16 feet) long. Such logs are 
usually described as long logs or treelength.


[[Page 35829]]


    FMCSA acknowledges CCMTA's concern with regard to crib-type log 
trailers. However, the agency explained in a clarification dated 
December 30, 2003, that generally, the use of a crib-type log 
securement system, without wrappers or tiedowns, would satisfy the 
commodity-specific requirements of Sec.  393.116 provided:

    (1) All vehicle components in the crib-type system are 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 [49 CFR 393.116(b)(2)];
    (2) Logs are solidly packed, with the outer bottom logs in 
contact with and resting solidly against the bunks, bolsters, stakes 
or standards [49 CFR 393.116(c)(1)];
    (3) 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 
[49 CFR 393.116(c)(2)];
    (4) The maximum height of each stack of logs being transported 
is below the height of the stakes, and the front- and rear-end 
structures; and,
    (5) The heights of the stacks are approximately equal so that 
logs in the top of one stack cannot shift longitudinally onto 
another stack on the vehicle.

    The Agency further explained that Sec.  393.116(b)(3), which 
requires that tiedowns be used in combination with the stabilization 
provided by bunks, stakes and bolsters to secure loads of logs, should 
not be considered applicable to the transportation of logs on crib-type 
vehicles under the conditions described above. However, Sec.  
393.116(c)(4), which also concerns tiedowns, remains applicable for 
logs that are not held in place by contact with other logs, stakes, 
bunks, or standards. This means the decision whether tiedowns must be 
used is contingent upon how the logs are loaded onto the vehicle. If 
the tops of the stacks of logs are relatively level, then tiedowns 
would not be required when the logs are transported in crib-type 
vehicles. Uneven loads would require tiedowns on the taller stacks, and 
on logs that are not held in place by other logs, bunks, or standards. 
FMCSA will amend Sec.  393.116 as proposed.
    FMCSA agrees with the WCLA/WTA recommendation regarding the 
securement of shortwood using wrappers on flatbed and frame vehicles. 
Specifically, while wrappers are not currently identified as a possible 
means of securing loads of shortwood, FMCSA believes that Sec.  
393.116(e) should be revised to permit the use of tiedowns or wrappers 
for these loads. Wrappers are tiedown-type devices that encircle the 
entire load, which is then placed onto the flatbed or frame vehicle in 
conjunction with the use of standards to keep the bundled logs in 
place. Given that the use of wrappers is permitted (1) on loads of 
longwood per the revisions to Sec.  393.116(e)(2)(ii) as discussed 
above, and (2) for the transportation of logs on pole trailers in Sec.  
393.116(f), there is no discernable reason the use of wrappers and 
standards as a means of securing loads of shortwood should be 
prohibited. While FMCSA agrees that wrappers should be included as 
possible method of securing shortwood, the Agency does not agree with 
the WCLA/WTA recommendation to revise Sec.  393.116(e)(2) that refers 
to longwood. Instead, FMCSA amends Sec.  393.116(e)(1) to permit the 
use of wrappers in security loads of shortwood, consistent with the 
comparable requirements for loads of longwod in Sec.  393.116(e)(2).
    10. NPRM Proposal: FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  393.118 by 
revising paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(B), replacing the period at the end of 
paragraph (d)(4) with a semicolon (;) and ``or,'' and adding paragraph 
(d)(5). (70 FR 33439)
    Comments: PFITC, FPAC, Rayonier, Georgia-Pacific, Allegheny, and 
EdgeWorks raised concerns that the proposed amendments in the NPRM (1) 
may impose a new securement requirement on stacked loads of dressed 
lumber and similar building products that would require tiedowns over 
an intermediate tier regardless of the height, and (2) will remove the 
requirement for a minimum of two tiedowns over each of the top bundles 
longer than 5 feet. The commenters believe that these changes would add 
securement requirements when they are not necessary to some loads, and 
remove a critical securement requirement for a minimum of two tiedowns 
over each bundle that is longer than 5 feet for all units on these 
loads.
    These commenters state that for dressed lumber or similar building 
materials stacked two tiers high and that exceed 2.5 meters in height, 
there should be a requirement for intermediate height securement over 
the lower tier in accordance with the general provisions of Sec.  
393.100-Sec.  393.114 unless the overall height of the two tier load is 
2.5 meter or less, in which case the lower tier would not require 
additional securement. In addition, these commenters believe that if 
there are three or more tiers, one of the middle tiers must be secured 
by tiedowns in accordance with the general provisions of Sec.  393.100-
Sec.  393.114 at a height that may not exceed 1.85 meters. In all 
instances, these commenters believe that stacked cargo longer than 5 
feet requires at least two tiedowns over the top tier.
    CCMTA was supportive of the proposed change provided the 
requirement for a minimum of two tiedowns over bundles longer than 1.52 
m on the top tier has not been removed (Sec.  393.118(d)(3)(iv)(A)).
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA appreciates the comment from PFITC, FPAC, 
Rayonier, Georgia-Pacific, Allegheny, and EdgeWorks, but the Agency 
does not believe there is a significant difference between the 
commenters' suggested amendments and the requirements proposed in the 
NPRM. The proposed language does not remove the requirement for a 
minimum of two tiedowns over each bundle that is longer than 5 feet 
(Sec.  393.118(d)(3)(iv)(A), which references the general provisions of 
Sec.  393.100-Sec.  393.114). The Agency also believes the tiedown 
requirements specified for intermediate tiers, as proposed in the NPRM, 
are consistent with those identified by the commenters. The Agency 
therefore adopts the amendments as proposed.
    11. NPRM Proposal: FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  393.122 by 
revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (d)(4). (70 FR 33439-33440)
    Comments: PFITC, FPAC, Rayonier, Georgia-Pacific, and Allegheny 
believe that the proposed amendments to Sec.  393.122(b)(4)(iv) could 
allow the forwardmost roll of all split loads that are secured using a 
combination of methods that include friction mats to not be adequately 
secured against forward tipping when the roll has a width greater than 
1.25 times its diameter. The commenters proposed revising this section 
as follows:

    Sec.  393.122(b)(4)(iv). If a paper roll or the forwardmost roll 
in a group of paper rolls has a width greater than 1.25 times its 
diameter, and it is not prevented from tipping or falling forwards 
by vehicle structure or other cargo, and it is not restrained 
against forward movement by friction mat(s) alone, then it must be 
prevented from tipping or falling by banding it to other rolls, 
bracing or tiedowns.

    The commenters agree with the proposed revision of Sec.  
393.122(d), but stated that a roll in a stack of rolls (two or more) 
raised by dunnage may be safely and effectively secured with friction 
mats, if the roll is not resting on the dunnage. The commenters 
requested the following clarification in 393.122(d)(4):

    Sec.  393.122(d)(4) A roll that is in the rearmost of any layer 
may not be secured by friction mats alone when it is raised using

[[Page 35830]]

dunnage and is directly above and in contact with that dunnage.

    Iowa DOT believes that friction mats used to secure paper rolls 
should be required to be sized and positioned to contact 100% of the 
footprint of the paper roll. In addition, Iowa DOT contends that there 
are many cases in which paper rolls are not adequately secured by the 
use of friction mats and believes that the existing regulations and 
policy guidance for Sec.  393.122(b)(4) are too complex and difficult 
to enforce at roadside. Iowa suggested revising Sec.  393.122(b)(4) 
such that when paper rolls are loaded with eyes vertical, friction mats 
or other blocking or dunnage devices would be required to prevent 
horizontal movement, regardless of roll width (vertical height) or 
position in the vehicle. In addition, rolls that have a width greater 
than 1.25 times their diameter would be required to be banded or 
secured to prevent tipping, regardless of position in the vehicle.
    CCMTA supported the proposed change, but suggested further 
clarification regarding the securement of single rolls of paper, in 
addition to paper rolls transported in groups. Specifically CCMTA 
recommended that Sec.  393.122(b)(4)(ii) and (iii) be reworded to 
state, ``If a single paper roll or the forwardmost roll in a group of 
paper rolls * * *.'' However, CCMTA did not support the proposed 
amendment to Sec.  393.122(d)(4), noting that the original proposed 
Model Regulation and National Safety Code Standard 10 prohibits raising 
loads in the last row on dunnage.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees with the commenters proposed 
clarification of Sec.  393.122(b)(4)(iv). The preamble of the NPRM had 
included the phrase ``by friction mat(s) alone,'' but that specific 
language was not included in the proposed regulatory text. FMCSA 
considers this an editorial correction to its 2005 proposal and the 
change has been included in the final regulatory text.
    While the Model Regulation and the National Safety Code Standard 10 
expressly prohibit raising a roll in the rearmost row of any layer 
using dunnage, neither of these publications--nor the research that was 
performed as the basis for developing these requirements--explains the 
intent of this prohibition or the hazards associated with loading paper 
rolls contrary to the stated prohibition. It is unclear to FMCSA why 
the language of the Model Regulation and the National Safety Code 
Standard 10 is written to prohibit such loading for situations in which 
rolls in the rearmost row of the second and following layers are 
prevented from forward, rearward, or side-to-side movement by means 
other than friction mats alone, (i.e., blocked, braced, banded, or tied 
down). In fact, the Cargo Securement Training Program developed by 
CCMTA and published in 2005 to assist both the enforcement community as 
well as carriers and drivers in applying and understanding the National 
Safety Code Standard 10 specifically states ``that a roll in the 
rearmost row of any layer must not be raised using dunnage unless the 
roll is blocked or braced or banded or tied down to prevent rearward 
movement.''
    FMCSA explained in the NPRM that securing a paper roll in the 
rearmost row of the second and following layers using friction mats 
alone is difficult, if not impossible, because of the sometimes limited 
surface area of the risers and the coefficients of friction involved. 
However, based on information from the Paper and Forest Industry 
Transportation Committee, the Agency concluded that paper rolls on 
risers could be adequately secured provided they are blocked, braced, 
or banded to other rolls such that forward, rearward, and side-to-side 
movement is prevented. This guidance is consistent with the material 
currently in the Cargo Securement Training Program developed by CCMTA. 
While Sec.  393.122 will differ from the Model Regulation and the 
National Safety Code Regulation 10 with respect to this issue, the 
Agency is confident that the securement of paper rolls in the rearmost 
row of any layer will not be compromised provided that any such rolls 
are adequately secured using blocking, bracing, or by banding the rolls 
together such that forward, rearward, and side-to-side movement is 
prevented. FMCSA does not believe that the language in Sec.  
393.122(d)(4) needs to be clarified as recommended by the commenters, 
and the Agency will amend the section as proposed in the NPRM.
    FMCSA agrees with the concerns expressed by Iowa DOT regarding the 
need to specify the minimum footprint of friction mats. While the 
regulation is currently silent on the matter of effective footprint 
area, the Agency appreciates Iowa's request that Sec.  393.122(b)(4) be 
simplified and made easier to understand for law enforcement personnel. 
The Agency is working closely with all interested parties through the 
NACSHC to further clarify the cargo securement regulations so that they 
are more easily understood and enforceable. Specifically with respect 
to the issue of friction mats, a separate working group has been formed 
under the NACSHC to examine the feasibility of establishing specific 
performance parameters for friction mats and their use as part of a 
cargo securement system.
    12. NPRM Proposal: The Agency proposed to amend Sec.  393.126 by 
revising paragraph (b)(1). (70 FR 33440)
    Comments: Iowa DOT concurred with the proposed amendments, but 
believes that additional language can be added to clearly reinforce the 
need to comply with the general securement requirements of Sec. Sec.  
393.106 and 393.110, specifically for empty intermodal containers 
transported on flatbed vehicles and secured by indirect tiedowns over 
the top of the container.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA acknowledges the concern expressed by the 
Iowa DOT with regard to the load securement requirements for the 
transportation of empty intermodal containers on vehicles other than 
container chassis vehicles. However, FMCSA believes that the general 
requirements for securing articles of cargo in Sec.  393.106, coupled 
with the commodity specific requirements for securing intermodal 
containers in Sec.  393.126(d), are sufficient to ensure the proper 
securement of empty intermodal containers on flatbed vehicles. 
Specifically, FMCSA believes that Sec.  393.126(d)(1) provides enough 
clarification by requiring that the empty intermodal container be 
balanced and positioned on the vehicle so that the container is stable 
before the addition of tiedowns or other securement equipment. Given 
the above, FMCSA does not believe that additional clarification is 
necessary to ensure proper securement of intermodal containers, and the 
amendments to Sec.  393.126 will be adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
    13. NPRM Proposal: FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  393.132 by 
revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(2)(i). (70 FR 33440)
    Comments: Iowa DOT and CCMTA support the proposed amendments to 
Sec.  393.132(b) that would allow for the use of short segments of 
synthetic web strapping on crushed car body loads, provided there is 
clear language that there may be absolutely no contact between the 
cargo and the segment of synthetic web strap used. Iowa believes the 
rule could further state that the only allowed use of synthetic web 
strapping would be at a point of attachment or tensioning device.
    Iowa DOT noted that several carriers have removed the floor from 
flatbed vehicles, leaving the floor cross bracing intact, creating a 
skeletal vehicle, which allows the debris and fluids to escape

[[Page 35831]]

from the bottom of the vehicle while in transit. Iowa suggested the 
inclusion of language in Sec.  393.132(c) to clearly state that the 
transport vehicle must have a floor that is free of openings that would 
allow any cargo to escape from the vehicle, and further suggested that 
the floor requirement clearly state the floor must be pan-shaped and 
must be capable of capturing and retaining all liquids and debris that 
may leak from the car bodies.
    CCMTA supported the intent of the proposed change, but expressed 
concern regarding some form of protection to synthetic webbing portion 
of tiedowns from being cut or damaged by the cargo.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes that the risk to synthetic webbing 
from flattened or crushed vehicles is adequately reflected in the 
proposed verbage in Sec.  393.132(b) which clearly states, ``However, 
the webbing (regardless of whether edge protection is used) must not 
come into contact with the flattened or crushed cars.''
    Iowa DOT's comment about fluid leaks while transporting flattened 
or crushed cars is very useful. FMCSA will close this loophole by 
modifying Sec.  393.132(c)(5)(i) to read: ``Vehicles used to transport 
flattened or crushed vehicles must be equipped with a means to prevent 
liquids from leaking from the bottom of the vehicle, and loose parts 
from falling from the bottom and all four sides of the vehicle 
extending to the full height of the cargo.''
    14. Additional Comments.
    AEM requested that a clarification be added regarding the 
requirement of Sec.  393.130(b)(1) that ``Accessory equipment, such as 
hydraulic shovels must be completely lowered and secured to the 
vehicle.'' It suggested that the following language be added to this 
section:

    Accessory equipment is not required to be lowered and secured, 
if either of the following criteria is met: (a) Transport restraint 
device/systems are used that meet the requirements of Sec.  393.102. 
(b) Drift or swing of accessory equipment will not move beyond the 
legal envelope of the trailer.

    AEM made a presentation to FMCSA personnel in 2004 requesting 
clarification and on September 8, 2005, the Agency approved the 
following official regulatory guidance:

    Sec.  393.130 What are the rules for securing heavy vehicles, 
equipment and machinery?
    Question 1: If an item of construction equipment which weighs 
less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.) is transported on a flatbed or drop-
deck trailer, must the accessory equipment be lowered to the deck of 
the trailer?
    Guidance: No. However, the accessory equipment must be properly 
secured using locking pins or similar devices in order to prevent 
either the accessory equipment or the item of construction equipment 
itself from shifting during transport.
    Question 2: How should I secure the accessories for an item of 
construction equipment which weighs 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.) or more, 
if the accessory devices would extend beyond the width of the 
trailer if they are lowered to the deck for transport?
    Guidance: The accessory devices (plows, trencher bars, and the 
like) may be transported in a raised position, provided they are 
designed to be transported in that manner. However, the accessory 
equipment must be locked in place for transport to ensure that 
neither the accessories nor the equipment itself shifts during 
transport.
    Question 3: A tractor loader-backhoe weighing over 10,000 pounds 
is being transported on a trailer. The loader and backhoe 
accessories are each equipped with locking devices or mechanisms 
that prevent them from moving up and down and from side-to-side 
while the construction equipment is being transported on the 
trailer. Must these accessories also be secured to the trailer with 
chains?
    Guidance: No. However, if the construction equipment does not 
have a means of preventing the loader bucket, backhoe, or similar 
accessories from moving while it is being transported on the 
trailer, then a chain would be required to secure those accessories 
to the trailer.

    In view of this guidance, the Agency does not consider regulatory 
amendments to be necessary.
    FMCSA received additional comments to the NPRM that were deemed to 
be outside the scope of this rulemaking. As part of the process for 
ensuring consistent interpretations of the harmonized cargo securement 
regulations, a North American Cargo Securement Harmonization Committee 
was formed to provide interested parties the opportunity to participate 
in the ongoing efforts to harmonize U.S. and Canadian cargo securement 
standards. FMCSA will continue to announce its public meetings with the 
harmonization committee so that all interested parties have the 
opportunity to participate in the discussions between the Agency, its 
Canadian counterparts, enforcement agencies, and the industry about 
interpretations and other implementation issues. Three public meetings 
have been held on this subject. The first meeting was held April 21-22, 
2005, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the second September 29-30, 2005, 
in Indianapolis, Indiana, and the third April 23, 2006, in Hartford, 
Connecticut. Minutes from these meetings, and the presentations made by 
participants will be placed in the Docket No. FMCSA-2005-22056 as they 
are available, and can be viewed electronically at http://dms.dot.gov. 
Future public meetings will be announced in the Federal Register.

X. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    FMCSA has determined this action is not a significant regulatory 
action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or Department of 
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. This document was 
not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We expect 
the final rule will have minimal costs, but the Agency has prepared a 
regulatory analysis and regulatory flexibility analysis. A copy of the 
analysis document is included in the docket referenced at the beginning 
of this notice.
    FMCSA has determined that it has good cause under 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(B) to incorporate by reference the 2005 version of the NACM's 
``Welded Steel Chain Specifications'' because additional notice and 
opportunity for comment on this issue are unnecessary. The NPRM 
proposed to incorporate the 2003 version. The 2005 version was 
published shortly after the NPRM, but includes no changes that would 
affect this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), FMCSA has considered the effects of this regulatory action on 
small entities and determined that this rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as 
defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Size 
Standards.
    This rulemaking will make only minor amendments and editorial 
corrections to FMCSA's September 27, 2002, final rule establishing new 
regulations concerning protection against shifting and falling cargo 
for CMVs operated in interstate commerce. The amendments will improve 
the clarity of certain provisions of the cargo securement regulations 
to ensure that the requirements are fully understood by motor carriers 
and enforcement officials. This action will better enable motor 
carriers to meet the safety performance requirements of the final rule, 
while continuing to adhere to industry best-practices that have been 
shown to effectively prevent the shifting and falling of cargo.
    Accordingly, FMCSA has considered the economic impacts of the 
requirements on small entities and determined that this rule will not 
have

[[Page 35832]]

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. A copy of the agency's regulatory flexibility analysis is 
included in the docket listed at the beginning of this notice.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    FMCSA has determined this rule will not impose an unfunded Federal 
mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1532, et seq.), that would result in the expenditure by State, 
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $128 million or more in any 1 year.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    FMCSA has determined this action would meet applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 
Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. The agency has determined this rulemaking 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)

    FMCSA has determined this rule would 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. FMCSA has determined this 
rulemaking does not have a substantial direct effect on States, and 
does not limit the policy-making discretion of the States. Nothing in 
this document preempts any State law or regulation.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding 
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do 
not apply to this 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

    FMCSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 
determined this action does not have an effect on the quality of the 
environment. However, an environmental assessment (EA) has been 
prepared because the rulemaking is not among the type covered by a 
categorical exclusion. A copy of the environmental assessment is 
included in the docket listed at the beginning of this notice.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA has 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 will not have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution or use of energy. This action merely makes minor 
amendments and editorial corrections to FMCSA's September 27, 2002, 
final rule establishing new regulations concerning protection against 
shifting and falling cargo for CMVs operated in interstate commerce. 
This action has no effect on the supply or use of energy, nor do we 
believe it will cause a shortage of drivers qualified to distribute 
energy, such as gasoline, fuel oil or other fuels.

List of Subjects for 49 CFR Part 393

    Incorporation by reference, Highway safety, Motor carriers.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations, chapter III, as follows:

PART 393--[AMENDED]

0
1. 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.


0
2. Amend Sec.  393.5 by adding definitions of ``crib-type trailer,'' 
and ``metal coil'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  393.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Crib-type log trailer means a trailer equipped with stakes, bunks, 
a front-end structure, and a rear structure to restrain logs. The 
stakes prevent movement of the logs from side to side on the vehicle 
while the front-end and rear structures prevent movement of the logs 
from front to back on the vehicle.
* * * * *
    Longwood means all logs, including utility poles, that are not 
shortwood, i.e., that are over 4.9 m (16 feet) long. Such logs are 
usually described as long logs or treelength.
    Metal coil means an article of cargo comprised of elements, 
mixtures, compounds, or alloys commonly known as metal, metal foil, 
metal leaf, forged metal, stamped metal, metal wire, metal rod, or 
metal chain that are packaged as a roll, coil, spool, wind, or wrap, 
including plastic or rubber coated electrical wire and communications 
cable.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  393.7 by revising paragraph (b)(19) to read as follows:


Sec.  393.7  Matters Incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (19) Welded Steel Chain Specifications, National Association of 
Chain Manufacturers, September 28, 2005, incorporation by reference 
approved for Sec.  393.104(e).
* * * * *

0
4. Revise Sec.  393.102 to read as follows:


Sec.  393.102  What are the minimum performance criteria for cargo 
securement devices and systems?

    (a) Performance criteria--(1) Breaking Strength. 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 be 
designed, installed, and maintained to ensure that the maximum forces 
acting on the devices or systems do not exceed the manufacturer's 
breaking strength rating under the following conditions, applied 
separately:
    (i) 0.8 g deceleration in the forward direction;
    (ii) 0.5 g acceleration in the rearward direction; and
    (iii) 0.5 g acceleration in a lateral direction.
    (2) Working Load Limit. 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 be designed, installed, and 
maintained to ensure that the forces

[[Page 35833]]

acting on the devices or systems do not exceed the working load limit 
for the devices under the following conditions, applied separately:
    (i) 0.435 g deceleration in the forward direction;
    (ii) 0.5 g acceleration in the rearward direction; and
    (iii) 0.25 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) Equivalent means of securement. The means of securing articles 
of cargo are considered to meet the performance requirements of this 
section if the cargo is ``
    (1) Immobilized, such so that it cannot shift or tip to the extent 
that the vehicle's stability or maneuverability is adversely affected; 
or
    (2) Transported in a sided vehicle that has walls of adequate 
strength, such that each article of cargo within the vehicle is in 
contact with, or sufficiently close to a wall or other articles, so 
that it cannot shift or tip to the extent that the vehicle's stability 
or maneuverability is adversely affected; or
    (3) Secured in accordance with the applicable requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  393.104 through 393.136.

0
5. Amend Sec.  393.104 as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (b) and (c);
0
b. By removing the words ``November 15, 1999'' and adding the words 
``dated September 28, 2005'' in their place in paragraph (e) (2) table;
0
c. By removing paragraph (f)(4); and
0
d. By redesignating paragraph (f)(5) as paragraph (f)(4).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  393.104  What standards must cargo securement devices and systems 
meet in order to satisfy the requirements of this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) Prohibition on the use of damaged securement devices. All 
tiedowns, cargo securement 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, such as, but not 
limited to, cracks or cuts that will adversely affect their performance 
for cargo securement purposes, including reducing the working load 
limit.
    (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, such 
as, but not limited to, cracks or cuts that will adversely affect their 
performance for cargo securement purposes, including reducing the 
working load limit.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  393.106 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as 
follows:


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.  393.116 
through Sec.  393.136. 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.
* * * * *
    (d) Aggregate working load limit for tiedowns. The aggregate 
working load limit of tiedowns used to secure an article or group of 
articles against movement must be at least one-half times the weight of 
the article or group of articles. The aggregate working load limit is 
the sum of:
    (1) One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that goes from 
an anchor point on the vehicle to an anchor point on an article of 
cargo;
    (2) One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that is 
attached to an anchor point on the vehicle, passes through, over, or 
around the article of cargo, and is then attached to an anchor point on 
the same side of the vehicle.
    (3) The working load limit for each tiedown that goes from an 
anchor point on the vehicle, through, over, or around the article of 
cargo, and then attaches to another anchor point on the other side of 
the vehicle.

0
7. Revise the heading of Sec.  393.108 to read as follows:


Sec.  393.108  How is the working load limit of a tiedown, or the load 
restraining value of a friction mat, determined?

* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  393.110 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  393.110  What else do I have to do to determine the minimum 
number of tiedowns?

    (a) When tiedowns are used as part of a cargo securement system, 
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. These requirements are in addition to the rules under Sec.  
393.106.
* * * * *
    (c) If an individual article is 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) of article length, or fraction 
thereof.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  393.114 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  393.114  What are the requirements for front-end structures used 
as part of a cargo securement system?

* * * * *
    (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 or article of 
cargo being carried on the vehicle, whichever is lower.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  393.116 by revising paragraph (b)(3), adding a new 
paragraph (b)(4) and revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  393.116  What are the rules for securing logs?

* * * * *
    (b) Components of a securement system. * * *
    (3) Tiedowns must be used in combination with the stabilization 
provided by bunks, stakes, and bolsters to secure the load unless the 
logs:
    (i) are transported in a crib-type log trailer (as defined in 49 
CFR 393.5), and
    (ii) are loaded in compliance with paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) of 
this section.
    (4) The aggregate working load limit for tiedowns used to secure a 
stack of logs on a frame vehicle, or a flatbed vehicle equipped with 
bunks, bolsters,

[[Page 35834]]

or stakes must be at least one-sixth the weight of the stack of logs.
* * * * *
    (e) Securement of logs loaded lengthwise on flatbed and frame 
vehicles--(1) Shortwood. 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 cradled in a bunk 
unit or contained by stakes and
    (i) Secured to the vehicle by at least two tiedowns, or
    (ii) If all the logs in any stack are blocked in the front by a 
front-end structure strong enough to restrain the load, or by another 
stack of logs, and blocked in the rear by another stack of logs or 
vehicle end structure, the stack may be secured with one tiedown. If 
one tiedown is used, it must be positioned about midway between the 
stakes, or
    (iii) Be bound by at least two tiedown-type devices such as wire 
rope, used as wrappers that encircle the entire load at locations along 
the load that provide effective securement. If wrappers are being used 
to bundle the logs together, the wrappers are not required to be 
attached to the vehicle.
    (2) Longwood. Longwood must be cradled in two or more bunks and 
must either:
    (i) Be secured to the vehicle by at least two tiedowns at locations 
that provide effective securement, or
    (ii) Be bound by at least two tiedown-type devices, such as wire 
rope, used as wrappers that encircle the entire load at locations along 
the load that provide effective securement. If a wrapper(s) is being 
used to bundle the logs together, the wrapper is not required to be 
attached to the vehicle.

0
11. Amend Sec.  393.118 by revising paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(B), removing 
the period at the end of paragraph (d)(4) and adding ``; or'' in its 
place, and adding paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  393.118  What are the rules for securing dressed lumber or 
similar building products?

* * * * *
    (d) Securement of bundles transported using more than one tier. * * 
*
    (3) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (B) Secured by tiedowns as follows:
    (1) If there are 3 tiers, the middle and top bundles must be 
secured by tiedowns in accordance with the general provisions of 
Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114; or
    (2) (i) If there are more than 3 tiers, then one of the middle 
bundles and the top bundle must be secured by tiedown devices in 
accordance with the general provision of Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 
393.114, and the maximum height for the middle tier that must be 
secured may not exceed 6 feet about the deck of the trailer; or
    (ii) Otherwise, the second tier from the bottom must be secured in 
accordance with the general provisions of Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 
393.114; or
* * * * *
    (5) When loaded in a sided vehicle or container of adequate 
strength, dressed lumber or similar building products may be secured in 
accordance with the general provisions of Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 
393.114.

0
12. Amend Sec.  393.122 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (d)(4) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  393.122  What are the rules for securing paper rolls?

* * * * *
    (b) Securement of paper rolls transported with eyes vertical in a 
sided vehicle. * * *
    (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 has a 
width greater than 1.75 times its diameter and it is not prevented from 
tipping or falling forwards by vehicle structure or other cargo, then 
it must be prevented from tipping or falling forwards by banding it to 
other rolls, bracing, or tiedowns.
    (iii) If the forwardmost roll(s) in a group of paper rolls has a 
width equal to or less than 1.75 times its diameter, and it is 
restrained against forward movement by friction mat(s) alone, then 
banding, bracing, or tiedowns are not required to prevent tipping or 
falling forwards.
    (iv) If a paper roll or the forwardmost roll in a group of paper 
rolls has a width greater than 1.25 times its diameter, and it is not 
prevented from tipping or falling forwards by vehicle structure or 
other cargo, and it is not restrained against forward movement by 
friction mat(s) alone, then it must be prevented from tipping or 
falling by banding it to other rolls, bracing or tiedowns.
* * * * *
    (d) Securement of stacked loads of paper rolls transported with 
eyes vertical in a sided vehicle. * * *
    (4) A roll in the rearmost row of any layer raised using dunnage 
may not be secured by friction mats alone.
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  393.126 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  393.126  What are the rules for securing intermodal containers?

* * * * *
    (b) Securement of intermodal containers transported on container 
chassis vehicle(s). (1) All lower corners of the intermodal container 
must be secured to the container chassis with securement devices or 
integral locking devices that cannot unintentionally become unfastened 
while the vehicle is in transit.
* * * * *

0
14. Amend Sec.  393.132 by revising paragraphs (b), (c)(2)(i), and 
(c)(5)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  393.132  What are the rules securing flattened or crushed 
vehicles?

* * * * *
    (b) Prohibition on the use of synthetic webbing. The use of 
synthetic webbing to secure flattened or crushed vehicles is prohibited 
except that such webbing may be used to connect wire rope or chain to 
anchor points on the commercial motor vehicle. However, the webbing 
(regardless of whether edge protection is used) must not come into 
contact with the flattened or crushed cars.
    (c) * * *
    (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 direction for which there is a containment wall or 
comparable means, and
* * * * *
    (5)(i) Vehicles used to transport flattened or crushed vehicles 
must be equipped with a means to prevent liquids from leaking from the 
bottom of the vehicle, and loose parts from falling from the bottom and 
all four sides of the vehicle extending to the full height of the 
cargo.
* * * * *

    Issued on: June 5, 2006.
David H. Hugel,
Acting Administrator for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
(FMCSA).
[FR Doc. 06-5236 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P