|
[Federal Register: September 27, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 188)]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 392 and 393
[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-97-2289]
RIN 2126-AA27
Development of a North American Standard for Protection Against
Shifting and Falling Cargo
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FMCSA revises its regulations concerning protection
against shifting and falling cargo for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
engaged in interstate commerce. The new cargo securement standards are
based on the North American Cargo Securement Standard Model
Regulations, reflecting the results of a multi-year comprehensive
research program to evaluate current U.S. and Canadian cargo securement
regulations; the motor carrier industry's best practices; and
recommendations presented during a series of public meetings involving
U.S. and Canadian industry experts, Federal, State and Provincial
enforcement officials, and other interested parties. The new rules
require motor carriers to change the way they use cargo securement
devices to prevent articles from shifting on or within, or falling
from, CMVs. In some instances, the changes may require motor carriers
to increase the number of tiedowns used to secure certain types of
cargoes. However, the rule generally does not prohibit the use of
tiedowns or cargo securement devices currently in use. Therefore, motor
carriers are not required to purchase new cargo securement equipment to
comply with the rule. The intent of this rulemaking is to reduce the
number of accidents caused by cargo shifting on or within, or falling
from, CMVs operating in interstate commerce, and to harmonize to the
greatest extent practicable U.S., Canadian, and Mexican cargo
securement regulations.
DATES: The rule is effective December 26, 2002. Motor carriers must
ensure compliance with the final rule by January 1, 2004. The
publications incorporated by reference in this final rule are approved
by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 26, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Bus and
Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSV, (202) 366-1790; or Mr. Charles
E. Medalen, Office of the Chief Counsel, MC-CC, (202) 366-1354, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 27, 1993, the House of Representatives held a hearing
concerning the adequacy of Federal regulations on cargo securement, as
well as the enforcement of those regulations ("Truck Cargo Securement
Regulations and Enforcement, 1993: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight of the House of Representatives' Committee
on Public Works and Transportation," 103rd Cong., 1st Sess. 32
(1993)). The report of the July 1993 hearing is included in the public
docket. The hearing was prompted by several cargo securement accidents
that occurred in New York between 1990 and 1993. During the hearing,
the Federal Highway Administrator stated that the Ontario Ministry of
Transportation had requested that the FHWA review a proposal prepared
on behalf of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators
(CCMTA)--a non-profit association of senior officials from Federal,
Provincial, and Territorial departments and agencies responsible for
the administration, regulation, and control of motor vehicle
transportation and highway safety--for a research program to evaluate
cargo securement regulations and industry practices. The Administrator
informed the subcommittee that the FHWA would participate in the
research effort and consider incorporating the results of the research
into the FMCSRs.
A cargo securement research working group was organized by the
CCMTA and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation to discuss the
research methodology with industry groups and Federal, State, and
Provincial governments from the United States and Canada. The working
group, which included representatives from the FHWA, Transport Canada
(the Federal department responsible for developing and enforcing the
regulatory aspects of motor vehicle and motor carrier safety in
Canada), the CCMTA, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA),
several States and Provinces, and U.S. and Canadian industry, held its
first meeting August 16-17, 1993. The cargo securement issues that were
to be examined through the research program and the selected research
methodology are described in a report published by the Ontario Ministry
of Transportation in November of 1993. A copy of the minutes of the
first meeting and a copy of the report entitled "A Proposal for
Research to Provide a Technical Basis for a Revised National Standard
on Load Security for Heavy Trucks" are included in the public docket.
The North American Load Security Research Project was initiated to
develop an understanding of the mechanics of cargo securement on heavy
trucks. The research was intended to provide a sound technical basis
for development of the North American Cargo Securement Standard Model
Regulations. Tests were conducted to examine the fundamental issues of
anchor points, tiedowns, blocking and friction, and issues related to
securement of dressed lumber (representative of cargoes that are loaded
lengthwise on a vehicle and secured with transverse tiedowns), large
metal coils, concrete pipe, intermodal containers, and other
commodities. A copy of the research reports is in the public docket.
Copies of these reports may be purchased from the CCMTA, 2323 St.
Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario K1G 4J8. The telephone number for
the CCMTA is 613-736-1003; the Web site address is
http://www.ab.org/ccmta/ccmta.html.
As various portions of the research were completed, the results
were provided to the Standard Drafting Group which was responsible for
leading the effort at drafting the North American Model Regulations.
Almost all of the research was completed by late 1997, with a few
remaining items completed in 1998. The drafting group was responsible
for reviewing the draft research reports to determine how the
information could best be used to improve specific cargo securement
requirements in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
Process for Development of the North American Model Regulations
The Standard Drafting Group developed the outline for the model
regulations with most of the detailed performance criteria added as the
research reports were completed. Membership in the drafting group
included representatives from the FHWA, Transport Canada, CCMTA, the
Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Quebec Ministry of Transportation--
Ontario and Quebec conducted most of the research--and the CVSA. The
CVSA was included in the drafting group because it is an organization
of Federal, State, and Provincial government
agencies and representatives from private industry in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico dedicated to improvement of commercial
vehicle safety. The membership of the drafting group was limited
because there was an informal agreement among the interested parties
that it would have been impractical to draft a technical document with
a larger number of participants.
The process used for further developing this outline for the model
regulations involved the North American Cargo Securement Harmonization
Committee, a group that reviewed major portions of this outline as it
was completed by the drafting group. Membership in the harmonization
group was open to all interested parties in the U.S., Canada, and
Mexico. This process was intended to ensure that all interested parties
had an opportunity to participate in the development of the model
regulations, and to identify and consider the concerns of the Federal,
State, and Provincial governments, carriers, shippers, industry groups,
and associations, as well as safety advocacy groups and the general
public. The harmonization group held public meetings at locations in
the United States and Canada, during which drafts of the North American
Cargo Securement Standard were presented for review and comment.
Representatives of the CCMTA and the CVSA served as co-chairpersons for
the harmonization group and organized the public meetings. The meetings
held in the U.S. concerning the review of substantive material that
would be included in the model regulations were announced by the FHWA
in the Federal Register. There were nine meetings held in the U.S. and
Canada. Copies of the minutes from the meetings, including lists of the
agencies, organizations and companies represented at the meetings, are
in the public docket.
For individuals and groups unable to attend the meetings, the CCMTA
posted information on the Internet. The Internet address is
http://www.ab.org/ccmta/ccmta.html.
Individuals and organizations with
Internet electronic mail addresses were provided with the opportunity
to have their names added to an electronic mailing list to receive
information on the development of the standard.
After all interested parties were given the opportunity to comment
and their concerns had been considered, the final version of the North
American Cargo Securement Standard was published in May 1999 by the
CCMTA. A copy of the standard is in the public docket. Federal, State,
and Provincial governments throughout North America have now been
encouraged to adopt it through their respective rulemaking processes.
Publication of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On October 17, 1996 (61 FR 54142), the FHWA published an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the development of the
North American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulations. The agency
requested comments on its consideration of a rulemaking to overhaul the
Federal cargo securement regulations based on the research program
described above and other published cargo-securement related research,
such as Southern Illinois University's March 1995 report entitled
"Analysis of Rules and Regulations for Steel Coil Truck Transport." A
copy of this report is included in the public docket. The agency also
requested comments on the process that would be used to develop the
North American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulations.
Generally, the commenters agreed with the agency's plan to
participate in the research program to evaluate cargo securement
systems, and the approach the agency described for developing the North
American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulations. However, some of
the commenters expressed concerns about specific issues they believe
were not discussed adequately in the research and standards development
program described in the ANPRM.
Publication of NPRM
On December 18, 2000, the agency published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to adopt rules based on the North American Cargo
Securement Standard Model Regulations (65 FR 79050). The NPRM requested
comments on all aspects of the rulemaking.
Discussion of Comments to the NPRM
The agency received 102 comments in response to the NPRM. The
commenters included individuals concerned about highway safety, truck
drivers, motor carriers, motor carrier associations, manufacturers and
shippers of products transported on trucks, truck trailer
manufacturers, manufacturers of devices used to secure articles of
cargo on commercial motor vehicles and several associations
representing such manufacturers, and safety advocacy groups.
Generally, the majority of the commenters supported the concept of
adopting the North American Cargo Securement Standard Model
Regulations. However, almost all of the commenters suggested revisions
of some of the requirements to make the proposed rule more consistent
with the model regulations, and to improve the clarity of the
requirements. A number of the commenters had objections to certain
provisions of the model regulations that were proposed for adoption,
suggesting that their concerns were not adequately addressed during the
public meeting process used for developing the model regulations. The
major issues are addressed below.
Applicability of Cargo Securement Rules
Several commenters expressed concerns about the applicability of
the cargo securement rules to commercial motor vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight less than 26,000 pounds. The National Association of
Trailer Manufacturers stated:
Our association is dedicated to promoting safety in trailers
under 26,000 lbs GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating]. We focus on
that segment of the trailer industry. We have observed repeatedly
that regulations are written based on experiences of tractor-trailer
rigs--the big ones--all over 26,000 lbs GVWR--and then are
automatically applied to the much smaller and much different
trailers.
We respectfully submit that the major differences of frame
structure, platform height, axle placements and towing methods are
significant and they do affect handling, loading, and safety
characteristics of these trailers.
Therefore, our general concern and fear is that regulations are
developed and applied to our segment of the industry without
considering their real needs, designs and ultimate impact on
manufacturing costs.
We suggest that the rulemaking in this case of cargo securement
be applied only to those trailers (over 26,000 lbs GVWR) where they
are needed.
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS ) also believes that there is
insufficient data concerning the securement of cargo transported in
vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,001 pounds but substantially less
than 26,001 pounds, the weight typically associated with a heavy
vehicle. UPS does not believe that FMCSA has investigated the
mechanical differences between such vehicles and heavy trucks, and
argues that the agency has made no effort to determine the propriety of
applying performance criteria and other standards developed for flatbed
and other heavy trucks to UPS package cars, trailers, or other similar
vehicles designed for the
handling of smaller package-type cargo within completely contained
CMVs.
The Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) expressed concern about
whether the rules would be applicable to the transportation of
manufactured homes. MHI stated that various types of materials and
supplies are shipped within the transportable sections of manufactured
homes from the point of manufacture to the retailer and/or home site,
where installation crews set up the homes. The materials and supplies
are used to complete the home and include carpeting, vinyl siding,
roofing materials, and interior wall and ceiling materials. MHI also
stated that the materials and supplies are spread out over several
rooms, and often placed within closets, utility rooms, and/or other
confined spaces within each transportable section of manufactured
housing. MHI requested that manufactured homes be excluded from the
applicability of the cargo securement rules.
FMCSA Response
The FMCSA believes the applicability of the new cargo securement
rules should be consistent with the applicability of the current cargo
securement regulations. The agency's cargo securement rules have
historically been applicable to the full range of cargo-carrying
commercial vehicles subject to the FMCSRs since the safety regulations
were first issued more than 60 years ago. The new rules should also be
applicable to all cargo-carrying, commercial motor vehicles (as defined
in 49 CFR 390.5). None of the commenters have presented information to
support making a distinction between the general applicability of the
FMCSRs, and the applicability of the cargo securement rules. There is
no readily apparent reason why any particular class or category of
cargo-carrying vehicle subject to the FMCSRs, should be excepted from
basic requirements to ensure that the cargo is secured to prevent it
from falling from the vehicle, or shifting to the extent that the
vehicle's stability or maneuverability is adversely affected.
We agree with commenters' assertions that there are differences in
frame structure, platform height, axle placements and towing methods.
However, there is no data to suggest that differences in the design of
the commercial motor vehicle, or the manner in which it is towed (e.g.,
a fifth wheel coupling device for truck trailers, versus a ball-and-
socket arrangement for small trailers) negate the need for ensuring
that cargo is properly secured to prevent accidents. The agency does
not believe that the rules being adopted represent a one-size-fits-all
approach to ensuring safety. The rules are performance-based to the
greatest extent practicable resulting in requirements that increase
with the size of the articles of cargo, or the complexity of the load
securement system necessary to ensure that the articles are properly
secured.
With regard to MHI's concerns about the rules being applicable to
manufactured homes, transporters of the homes would comply by ensuring
that materials and supplies used to complete the home, are positioned
so that they cannot shift around inside the home while it is being
towed to its installation site. Placing the items within closets and
utility rooms or other confined spaces generally would satisfy the new
requirements under § 393.102.
Relationship Between FMCSA's and RSPA's Cargo Securement Rules
The Georgia Public Service Commission (Georgia PSC) recommended
that FMCSA should reference provisions of the Research and Special
Programs Administration's (RSPA) load securement rules for hazardous
materials transported by highway [Subpart B of 49 CFR part 177].
Georgia PSC indicated that the hazardous materials regulations do not
contain load securement requirements for Class 9 materials and
combustible liquids. These materials may be transported in non-
specification packaging (i.e., packaging that is not required to meet
RSPA performance standards). In addition, the transportation of limited
quantities is not specifically covered by load securement provision of
the hazardous materials regulations.
FMCSA Response
The FMCSA does not believe it is necessary to include a reference
to the hazardous materials regulations. The cargo securement rules
being adopted are applicable to any articles of cargo being transported
in or on a commercial motor vehicle, regardless of whether the
transportation of the articles is subject to the hazardous materials
regulations. The agency has contacted RSPA to discuss this matter does
not believe the hazardous materials rules prevent motor carriers from
complying with the FMCSA's cargo securement rules, or vice versa. The
FMCSA's and RSPA's rules are complementary and motor carriers
transporting hazardous materials must ensure compliance with both
agencies' rules, whenever applicable.
Performance Criteria for Cargo Securement Systems
International Paper Company was among the numerous commenters that
expressed concerns about the proposed minimum performance criteria for
cargo securement devices and systems. International does not believe
the deceleration values can be achieved under actual test conditions
with loaded vehicles. They believe the values were based on
researchers' analysis rather than the results of actual vehicle tests.
International believes that minimum performance criteria of 0.6g
forward, 0.35g lateral and 0.25g rearward have been proven in real-
world testing and should be adopted.
The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA), however, believes
the proposed performance criteria are appropriate. The ATA stated:
For many years a 0.6g deceleration was the best that could be
attained. However, today's truck tires and brakes are more capable
than ever before. In discussions with tire, brake and vehicle
manufacturers there was agreement that the g forces defined in the
proposal are now achievable. While these forces will rarely reach
the 0.8g forward, 0.5g rearward and 0.5g lateral values, they can be
achieved and so should be expected under certain non-crash
conditions. Therefore we accept the new values.
The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) believes the
performance criteria are inadequate. Advocates stated:
These proposed limits accord with recognized commercial vehicle
operating tolerances for deceleration and acceleration generally
without a driver losing control of a truck and subsequently rolling
over, yawing, or jackknifing. However, they do not entail a severe
demand on cargo securement in severe maneuvers or in minor crashes
involving forces exceeding these ceilings.
The FMCSA states in this proposed rule that it will not adopt
performance standards ensuring that cargo is retained on or in the
commercial vehicle in collisions, rollovers, or trailer detachments.
Id. It is noteworthy that, although the agency asserts that
"shifting or falling cargo is a contributing factor in less than
one percent of the accidents self-reported by motor carriers," it
only states without corroborating figures that "there is no
evidence that a significant number of secondary injuries or
fatalities are caused by the impact of cargo thrown from a CMV as
the result of an accident, as opposed to the impact of the CMV
itself with the roadway, nearby objects or other vehicles." Id. At
79053, 79054. The FMCSA cannot fulfill its obligation to provide a
documented administrative record in this rulemaking by making this
kind of summary dismissal of the crash consequences of dislodged
cargo. Many anecdotal reports, including newspaper accounts, of
crashes involving deaths and injuries as a result of cargo
detachment have been made over the
years which verify that some of these losses occurred from the
separation of freight from commercial motor vehicles as the result
of severe maneuvers resulting in a collision with other vehicles,
impacts with fixed object hazards, or rollovers. Advocates continues
to believe that the agency has an obligation to establish standards
which ensure the crashworthiness of cargo securement methods in most
collisions or rollovers.
FMCSA Response
The FMCSA believes the proposed performance criteria are
appropriate for adoption in the final rule. The agency agrees with the
ATA that commercial motor vehicles are now capable of achieving the
types of accelerations and decelerations that are being adopted as
performance criteria. While it is true that not every commercial motor
vehicle on the road today is capable of achieving such levels of
performance, there is no practical way to ensure that all loads are
adequately secured unless the rule includes performance criteria that
reflect the latest developments in vehicle design. Neither motor
carriers nor enforcement officials will be able to determine vehicle
performance capabilities. Therefore, rather than adopt a rule with
multiple sets of performance standards to cover a variety of vehicle
types and configurations, the agency is adopting a single set of
performance standards that would ensure that all loads are properly
secured, regardless of the stopping capability or maneuverability of
the vehicle.
The FMCSA disagrees with the Advocates' argument about the need for
ensuring crashworthiness of cargo securement systems. FMCSA finds that
there is no evidence that a significant number of secondary injuries or
fatalities are caused by cargo thrown from a CMV after a collision. We
recognize that there are anecdotal reports and newspaper accounts of
crashes involving deaths and injuries as a result of cargo separating
from a commercial motor vehicle after a collision with fixed objects or
rollovers. However, a rulemaking to establish crashworthiness standards
requires much more justification than anecdotal reports and newspaper
articles.
The agency would have to identify the types of collisions or
rollovers the rulemaking would address, the forces most likely to act
on the articles of cargo during these collisions and rollovers, and the
type of cargo securement systems necessary to prevent the cargo from
separating from the vehicle. The effort required to undertake such a
rulemaking would be costly and require a substantial amount of time to
complete crash testing necessary to demonstrate the adequacy of the
securement systems for the various scenarios. To undertake such a
program with nothing more than anecdotal information as the
justification would be inappropriate.
We continue to believe that there is no practical way to ensure
that all loads are secured to prevent separation from the vehicle after
there is a collision or rollover. The more practical approach for
ensuring highway safety is to focus on crash avoidance-type cargo
securement rules, rather than crashworthiness cargo securement
standards.
Securement of Articles of Cargo in Van-Type Trailers
Numerous commenters expressed concerns about the applicability of
the proposed rules to articles of cargo transported in van-type
trailers. The American Forest and Paper Association stated:
The [preamble to the NPRM] states, "* * *. In the case of van
type trailers, the problem is that some motor carriers do not use
any securement devices to prevent loads from shifting." We believe
that this is a factual statement, however, it can be misleading.
There are many loads that can be safely transported in a van type
vehicle, using correct loading patterns, that require no additional
forms of securement that meet the G-force requirements, excepting
the rearward requirement which is overly restrictive. The loads that
can be loaded, such that they prevent movement to the extent that
affects the vehicle's stability and will not fall off of or out of
the vehicle, are safe.
Weyerhaeuser stated:
[T]he sections of the proposed standard that cover general cargo
(§ 393.100 through 393.120) are confusing and far removed from
the principles of the Model Regulation. These sections appear to
require tiedowns for cargo transported in sided vehicles at all
times. Cargo that will not fall from or out of a vehicle and cargo
that will not shift to the extent that the vehicle's stability is
adversely affected should not be subject to the requirements
concerning tiedowns or other additional securement. The confusion in
these proposed rules could lead to needless litigation based on the
confusion and misinterpretation of the rules by shippers, carriers
and enforcement agencies.
FMCSA Response
The FMCSA agrees with commenters that there are many loads that can
be safely transported in a van type vehicle, using correct loading
patterns, without any additional forms of securement. The agency never
intended that the cargo securement rules require tiedowns on all
articles of cargo transported in van-type trailers, regardless of the
type of cargo and loading arrangement. We have made revisions to the
proposed language in response to the commenters to improve the clarity
of the rule, and to make the final rule more consistent with the model
regulations. The new regulatory language in § 393.106 will ensure a
performance-based approach to securing articles of cargo in van-type
trailers.
Making a Distinction Between Direct and Indirect Tiedowns
Many of commenters indicated that the proposed distinction between
direct and indirect tiedowns would cause confusion if adopted in the
final rule. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance stated:
It is evident to the [CVSA] that, while there is a sound
technical basis for drawing the distinction, there are grave
concerns with [the] prospect of introducing this concept in
regulation. There is a great deal of confusion with the distinction,
in spite of the definitions included in the NPRM. Of particular
concern is the prospect of ensuring that the calculation of
aggregate working load limit of securement systems is carried out
easily and consistently by carriers and enforcement officials.
Advocates stated:
[We] cannot conclusively distinguish between direct and indirect
tiedowns, nor between exactly which parts of a direct tiedown are
governed by one-half its working load or by its full working load.
Although we can envision an indirect tiedown whose character appears
to apply essentially constraining vertical forces on a piece of
cargo against the floor of the vehicle, it is far less clear when a
tiedown can or cannot be regarded as a "direct" tiedown or which
parts are governed by full working load limits and which by one-half
working load limits. Advocates is convinced that many carriers and
drivers will fail to understand the distinctions drawn by the agency
concerning tiedowns and will inappropriately judge a tiedown as
"direct" when in fact it is an indirect tiedown, or will misjudge
the working load limits applying to the different parts of a direct
tiedown, resulting in securement which does not meet the standard
and poses an unacceptable safety risk of dislodgement. As a result,
the calculations which the agency wants carriers to apply in judging
whether the requirements of the proposed regulation have been met,
will be uncertain and often mistaken. The FMCSA needs to evaluate
its descriptions of the different species of tiedowns and perhaps
provide clearer text accompanied by illustrative examples of the
most common ways in which tiedowns are direct and indirect, and
provide guidance on how carriers and drivers can distinguish between
the different parts of direct tiedowns with respect to working load
limits.
FMCSA Response
The FMCSA agrees with the commenters concerns about making the
distinction between direct and indirect tiedowns. While there may be
safety benefits to adopting a final rule that makes such a distinction,
there are also safety risks associated with motor carriers, drivers,
and enforcement officials not fully understanding the difference
between the two types of tiedowns, and underestimating the aggregate
working load limit necessary to prevent the shifting or falling of
cargo. The current requirement that the aggregate working load limit of
any securement systems used to restrain an article or group of articles
be at least one-half times the weight of the article will remain in
place. However, the new rule explains in greater detail how the working
load limits of the individual tiedown devices are added together to
determine the aggregate working load limit, and to account for each
associated connector or attachment mechanism, and for each section of a
tiedown that is attached to an anchor point.
Marking and Rating of Tiedowns and Anchor Points
Mr. John R. Billing, one of the members of the group that drafted
the model regulations, commented on the agency's decision not to
prohibit the use of unmarked tiedowns at this time. Mr. Billing stated:
One of the objectives of the standard is to ensure that
shippers, carriers and drivers use the proper tools and techniques
to secure cargo. When it comes to heavy specialized loads, like
logs, metal coils, billets or plate, concrete pipe, and others,
there should be no room for doubt about the capacity of the tools or
the reliability of the techniques. Most carriers who move such
commodities on a daily basis [use] marked tiedowns and trailers
designed for the loads they carry. Prohibiting use of unmarked
tiedowns will not affect them. It will affect the driver who tries
to take such a load, and has neither the experience nor the proper
equipment. An objective of the standard is to try to prevent the
inexperienced and under-equipped from doing things they should not
be attempting.
On the subject of trailer anchor points, Mr. Billing stated:
This issue is really the same issue as allowing use of unmarked
chain. If a trailer will carry a serious load, secured by marked
chain of serious capacity, then the anchor points need to be strong
enough to resist the loads that the chain will apply to them.
The ATA indicated that it agrees with the concept of having
unmarked tiedowns considered as having a working load limit equal to
the lowest rating for their type of material, as listed in the table of
working load limits included in the rule. The ATA stated:
Ultimately, when all manufacturers mark their products with
their working load limit it will be possible to prohibit unmarked
tiedown devices. The possibility of doing this will arise several
years after the proposed rule goes into effect and manufacturers and
consumers realize the benefits of making and using marked products.
Keen Transport, Inc. expressed concern about the potential impact
the rules would have on motor carriers if FMCSA prohibited the use of
unmarked tiedowns and required rating and marking of anchor points on CMVs.
FMCSA Response
We agree with the principle that it is important to ensure that
shippers, carriers and drivers use the proper tools and techniques to
secure cargo. However, safety-conscious motor carriers and drivers
could achieve compliance with the rules being adopted, and make wise
choices about cargo securement devices, without the mandatory marking
and labeling of tiedowns and anchor points.
We acknowledge that if unmarked tiedowns of varying grades are
readily available, motor carriers could unknowingly violate the current
rule and the new rule by failing to have an adequate number of
securement devices. The consequences for a load such as metal coils
could be fatal to other motorists. While the risks of such an accident
could be greatly minimized by prohibiting motor carriers from using
unmarked tiedowns, there is insufficient information to support such a
requirement at this time.
We continue to believe that before initiating a rulemaking to
prohibit the use of unmarked/unrated cargo securement devices, we would
have to quantify the potential economic burden on the motor carrier
industry and those involved with the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of unmarked securement devices. Since we have no reliable
information on the number of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers
of unmarked tiedowns, the quality or strength of such devices, or the
amount of these tiedowns currently in use by motor carriers and in
retailers' stock, it would be inappropriate to propose a prohibition at
this time. None of the commenters favoring a prohibition on unmarked
tiedowns provided information to support the need for such a
rulemaking.
With regard to the specific issue of anchor points on semitrailers
and trailers, we continue to believe that it is not appropriate to
establish such requirements at this time. Although the Truck Trailer
Manufacturers Association (TTMA) has established a recommended
practice, "RP 47-99, Testing, Rating, and Labeling Platform and Van
Trailers for Cargo Securement Capability" June 1, 1999, concerning
test procedures and general performance specifications for tiedown
anchor points, front-end structures, and sidewall structures, the FMCSA
still does not have any information on the extent to which trailer
manufacturers follow these recommendations. If we determine that a
significant percentage of manufacturers follow the recommended
practices, the agency will consider a rulemaking to incorporate by
reference the TTMA's recommended practice. The requirement would then
apply to trailers manufactured on or after the effective date of the
final rule. We are taking this cautious approach because we must be
certain that newly manufactured trailers satisfy the guidelines in the
recommended practice and that motor carriers would not be prohibited
from using suitable semitrailers and trailers solely on the basis that
the vehicle lacked a rating and marking of the anchor points.
Based on the anecdotal information available to date, the vast
majority of cargo-securement related accidents do not involve problems
with the anchor points. The majority of these accidents appear to
involve an inadequate number of tiedown devices, improper placement of
the tiedowns, or other factors unrelated to the design or performance
capability of the anchor points. Therefore, we continue to believe that
our focus should remain on the actual tiedowns and the way motor
carriers use such devices to secure articles of cargo, rather than on
vehicle-based anchor points.
Responsibilities for Securement of the Contents of Intermodal
Containers
A number of commenters discussed the difficulties that motor
carriers would have if the cargo securement rules required the motor
carrier to ensure that the contents of the intermodal container were
properly secured, regardless of the entity that loaded the container.
The ATA stated:
It is illegal for a motor carrier or driver to tamper with a
seal on an intermodal cargo container that has not been cleared by
the United States Customs [Service]. Many motor carriers are Customs
bonded to receive containers of cargo that have not yet been
approved by agents of the U.S. Customs [Service]. Customs-bonded
motor carriers are responsible for:
- Affixing the red Customs warning cards at the access points of conveyances
(typically vehicle, including intermodal container, doors) (the red cards are in
addition to the existing seal(s)); and
- Assuring the integrity of the seal and the "sanitary" condition of the cargo until
Customs clears its status for delivery to the consignee.
It is not uncommon for intermodal containers of Customs bonded
cargo to either travel hundreds of miles or be stored in the motor
carrier's secured facilities before being cleared by Customs. During
this period, any removal or tampering with the seal(s) or cards
violates U.S. Customs regulations and is punishable by two years
imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine. Customs regulations do not permit
breaking seals to double-check the loading party's work. The only
regulatory exception is in the case of "* * * a real emergency."
The United States Maritime Alliance Limited and the Carriers
Container Council, Inc. jointly submitted comments. They stated:
While the proposed regulations recognize that commercial motor
vehicle ("CMV") drivers do not have the ability to inspect sealed
containers, it fails to recognize that similarly ocean carriers and
marine terminal operators are not able to inspect cargo transported
in sealed containers. This is a significant omission because it
indicates that the drafters are not considering a global view of
intermodal transportation but instead are taking a narrow view of
the system. Moreover, the exemption for CMV drivers provided under
§ 392.9(b)(4) could be viewed as placing a burden on ocean
carriers or marine terminal operators to perform these inspections
prior to tendering the container to a motor carrier. The proposed
regulations are deficient in providing the same type of unequivocal
exemption for ocean carriers and marine terminal operators.
Advocates believes it is inappropriate to exempt drivers from
inspecting the cargo securement of freight carried in sealed
containers, freight which the driver is not allowed to inspect, or
freight "loaded in a manner that makes inspection of the cargo
impracticable." 65 FR 79055. Advocates stated:
These exemptions will easily become major loopholes for
consignors, brokers, freight forwarders, and motor carriers which
will undoubtedly be exploited especially for legal defense of suits
resulting from crashes with deaths, injuries, and property damage
losses as the direct result of dislodged cargo. The provision
provides ample opportunities for the different parties in the supply
chain to attempt to shift burdens of responsibility for cargo
securement and any subsequent failures.
FMCSA Response
The FMCSA recognizes the concerns commenters have about the
inspection of cargo in intermodal containers. However, the new cargo
securement rules would place no greater responsibility on motor
carriers and drivers than the current rules. Neither the current rules
nor the rules being adopted today include a requirement that drivers
inspect all loads in intermodal containers. Drivers are only required
to inspect loads when practicable. If the driver has the opportunity to
check the securement of the load (for example, the driver is present
while the container is being loaded) then there is no readily apparent
reason why the motor carrier and driver should not be held accountable
for the securement of the load. On the other hand, if there was no
practicable opportunity to inspect the cargo securement system because
the container was sealed by the shipper with strict instructions to the
carrier not to open the container, then the exception under §
392.9(b)(4) would be applicable, and the driver would not be required
to inspect the cargo securement system.
The FMCSA encourages U.S-based motor carriers to work with domestic
and international shippers to ensure that loads are properly secured.
Regardless of whether the FMCSRs are applicable to shippers, they have
a role in ensuring highway safety when they load containers for
transport on the highway, and seal the containers, for whatever reason.
Periodic Inspection of Cargo Securement Systems by Driver
The California Trucking Association (CTA) recommends that the
requirement for drivers to stop and inspect the articles of cargo and
the securement devices be revised to be product-specific. The CTA
believes that each motor carrier should develop a policy to govern load
securement and inspection procedures based on their knowledge and
expertise in transporting various commodities. The written policy would
then be made available to enforcement personnel during a compliance
review.
The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) opposed increasing
the mileage at which a driver must inspect the load after beginning a
trip from 25 miles to 50 miles. MDOT indicated that there have been a
number of incidents where the load came loose and caused traffic tie-
ups and in some cases collisions which have resulted in serious injury
or death.
Mr. Gary Volkman disagreed with the requirement for en route
inspections of the cargo securement system. Mr. Volkman stated:
Consider that currently the hazardous materials regulations
already have a rule that every 2 hours or 100 miles the driver of a
placarded load must stop and do a tire check. Why would we confuse
the issues in a different regulation that will require the driver to
stop in the first 50 miles and conduct a tie down inspection? As a
dry van carrier it is entirely feasible that we may have a situation
wherein we provide transportation for a partial load of metal coils
(eye vertical) and hazardous materials that require placards. Which
rule should we follow? Or, would we stop every 50 miles for the
entire trip?
FMCSA Response
The FMCSA disagrees with the commenters' views about the periodic
inspection of the cargo securement system. We continue to believe that
it is necessary for drivers to inspect cargo securement systems because
the amount of tension in the tiedowns assemblies may decrease
significantly after the driver begins operating the vehicle. Vibrations
may cause the articles of cargo to shift slightly such that the
tiedowns need to be readjusted to ensure that the articles do not fall
from the vehicle, or shift to the extent that the vehicle's stability
is adversely affected. We do not have sufficient information to develop
a periodic inspection standard that is commodity-specific as one
commenter suggested, but there is sufficient basis for retaining a
general rule for all drivers to periodically check the condition of the
cargo securement system.
With regard to comments about the frequency of periodic
inspections, we recognize the differences between the minimum
requirements for checking the condition of the cargo securement system,
and checking the tires in accordance with § 397.17. The
differences, however, do not prevent drivers and motor carriers from
complying with either the cargo securement rules, or the tire
inspection rule.
On July 16, 2002 (67 FR 46624), the agency proposed eliminating the
requirement for periodic tire checks. The agency proposed that tires be
checked at the beginning of each trip and each time the vehicle is
parked. If the proposal is adopted as a final rule, the differences
between the inspection intervals would be a moot issue.
With regard to checking the cargo securement system, we are
providing drivers with three options: whenever the driver makes a
change in the duty status; or after the vehicle has been driven for 3
hours; or after the vehicle has been driven for 150 miles, whichever
occurs first. Pending the completion of the rulemaking cited above,
§ 397.17 currently requires drivers of motor vehicles transporting
hazardous material, and equipped with dual tires on any axle, to stop
the vehicle at least once every 2 hours or 100 miles of travel,
whichever occurs first, to inspect the tires. It is clear that §
397.17 requires more frequent stops to ensure the proper operating
condition of
the tires. It is also clear that stopping more frequently than the
intervals prescribed by § 392.9 is not prohibited. Therefore, for
drivers transporting hazardous materials, compliance with § §
392.9 and 397.17 could be achieved by simply following the intervals
specified in § 397.17. We do not believe it is necessary that both
rules use the same intervals.
In response to MDOT, the proposal to change the initial en route
inspection from 25 miles to 50 miles is based on the model regulation
developed by the harmonization committee and discussed in the public
meetings described above. Given the extensive knowledge and experience
of the government and industry representatives, we believe it is
appropriate to adopt the 50-mile criterion. In doing so, we are
allowing drivers the flexibility to perform the initial en route
inspection within the first 25 miles after beginning a trip, or if the
driver believes it is more appropriate based on the nature of the
articles of cargo and the condition of the roads, to inspect the cargo
within the first 50 miles after beginning a trip. We are not aware of
any data or information that would suggest that allowing up to 25
additional miles for the first en route inspection would reduce the
level of safety of operation of commercial motor vehicles.
Special Rule for Special Purpose Vehicles
Silk Road Transport indicated that the current cargo securement
rules provide an option for achieving proper securement by means other
than those specified in the rules. Silk Road Transport believes
proposed rules should be revised to include the same level of
flexibility for unique cargo such as railcars, airplane wings, and
other unique cargo.
FMCSA Response
We agree with Silk Road Transport's comments. The final rule
retains what is currently codified under § 393.100(d), the special
rule for special-purpose vehicles, in § 393.110(e).
We have always understood that there are articles of cargo that
require special means of loading onto commercial motor vehicles and
recognized that the general cargo securement rules may not be
appropriate when applied to the securement systems used for these
articles. In many cases, if the general rules are applied to these
loads, the articles of cargo may be damaged during transport to the
extent that they could no longer be used for their intended purposes.
Motor carriers are capable of ensuring that specialty articles, such as
those described by Silk Road Transport, are adequately secured in a
manner consistent with the performance requirements of this rule,
without being subjected to detailed rules that could result in damage
to the cargo. The rules have allowed motor carriers flexibility for
special-purpose vehicles for many years and there is no readily
apparent reason to believe that the safety of operation of commercial
motor vehicles would be reduced if we continue to allow the flexibility
for special-purpose vehicles.
National Association of Chain Manufacturers' (NACM) Publication
The ATA believes the NACM is inconsistent in its use of safety
factors. The ATA indicated that grade 4 chain has a safety factor of 3
(the ratio of the breaking strength to the working load limit is 3) but
grades 7, 8, and 10 have a safety factor of 4. The ATA stated:
Past regulatory practice and industry experience show that,
employed in conjunction with the stipulations in the FMCSRs, a
safety factor of 3 is appropriate for chain that is used to secure
cargo. Currently Grade 4 chain and webbing both use a safety factor
of 3. So, the assumption made to ensure that changing from a rule
based on static breaking strength to one based on working load limit
would not require more tie-downs, succeeded for them. However, as
noted, NACM assigns chain grades 7, 8, and 10 a safety factor of 4.
Hence these products are now penalized in that they can not be
employed as they were prior to 1993, when all chain used for load
securement was selected on the basis of its static breaking
strength.
The ATA recommends that all load securement chain be assigned a
safety factor of three.
The ATA believes this would keep the rule from being overly
conservative and avoid penalizing motor carriers for using a superior
product.
The Specialized Carriers and Rigging Association (SC&RA) also
expressed concerns about the NACM's safety factors. SC&RA indicated
that it joined the ATA in requesting the NACM change to a cargo
securement safety factor of 3, but the NACM rejected the request for
fear of confusion caused by having one safety factor for loading and
another for lifting.
FMCSA Response
The FMCSA appreciates the concerns commenters expressed about
NACM's safety factors for determining working load limits for various
grades of chain. However, the agency does not believe this rulemaking
is the forum for resolving the issue.
The agency first adopted the use of working load limits on July 6,
1994 (59 FR 34712). The final rule incorporated by reference the NACM's
specifications. There appeared to be support for relying on the NACM's
expertise in establishing minimum working load limits for chain that
meets the association's manufacturing specifications. There is no
indication from the commenters that the technical expertise represented
by the association's publication is any less credible than it was in
1994.
We believe it is appropriate to defer judgment about working load
limits for chains to reputable chain manufacturers and their
association. While the NACM's rationale for using different safety
factors for different grades of chain is not entirely clear, the level
of knowledge and expertise represented by the association is such that
the agency would rather adopt their working load limits, even if they
may appear to be overly conservative. There is no indication that
adopting the NACM's most recent working load limits would have an
adverse impact on safety, or result in unnecessarily burdensome
requirements when incorporated by reference.
The agency encourages all interested parties to continue dialogue
with the NACM to achieve a common understanding of the working load
limits necessary for ensuring highway safety. If the dialogue results
in the NACM revising its safety factors, the FMCSA will consider
incorporating by reference the new NACM publication.
Logs
Several commenters specializing in the transportation of logs
expressed concern that the proposed applicability statement for the
rules concerning the securement of logs was inconsistent with the model
regulations. The commenters also identified regulatory language in the
applicability paragraph that was no longer necessary if the agency made
the requirements more consistent with the model regulation.
Specifically, the commenters indicated that the applicability paragraph
in the model regulations included an exception for logs that are
unitized by banding or other comparable means. However, the agency's
proposal would have imposed the requirements on banded loads rather
than to allow them to be transported under the general rules for
securement.
The commenters indicated that the statement about the rules
applying to "all other logs" and the sentence explaining that a load
comprised of shortwood and longwood must be treated as shortwood were
unnecessary.
FMCSA Response
The FMCSA agrees with the commenters. After carefully reviewing the
model regulations, the agency recognizes the inconsistency between its
NPRM and the model standards. The regulatory language for the final
rule has been revised accordingly.
Concrete Pipe
The SC&RA and the American Concrete Pipe Association (ACPA)
expressed concern about the proposed requirement that two longitudinal
cables (running from the front of the trailer to the rear of the
trailer) be used on certain loads of concrete pipe. The SCRA stated:
Current practices within the industry have proven to be safe and
effective for the last 45 years. These practices typically include a
single 2 speed winch mounted to a heavy duty stand in the front of
the trailer. On the winch a [\1/2\-inch] cable goes over the load
and attaches to the bed of the rear of the trailer. After the cable
is in place over the load and tightened, the low gear side of the
winch is engaged. This process not only forces downward pressure on
the bed but it also forces the pipe together. The end result is a
tighter bundle of product on the trailer bed. This method has been
demonstrated to the enforcement community and has been deemed to be
a safe and practical means of transporting pipe. SC&RA proposes
flexibility in this area that would either require two [\3/8\-inch]
cables or a single [\1/2\-inch] cable with a [two-speed] winch
mount.
FMCSA Response
We agree with the comments from ACPA and SC& RA. The most important
aspect of the requirement for the longitudinal tiedown is the working
load limit. Either one \1/2\-inch, or two \3/8\-inch cables or chains
with the appropriate working load limit(s) would ensure safety. We
believe it is possible to allow flexibility without reducing safety so
the final rule provides increased flexibility for longitudinal
tiedowns.
Flattened Cars
The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) expressed
concern about the proposed requirements for securing flattened cars.
ISRI stated:
Companies that process and load flattened and crushed cars for
transport to recycling facilities must follow stringent practices to
prevent loose material from falling from these loads. There are
several different ways by which junked cars are flattened or
crushed. Each of these practices includes processing controls and
numerous inspections of the car to detect and remove loose material
that could fall from the load during transport. A secured load of
property processed and loaded flattened or crushed cars can be
visually inspected by any law enforcement officer or transportation
official to ascertain that the load will not shed loose material
onto the roadway during transport.
Hugo Neu Corporation submitted comments in opposition to those of
ISRI. Hugo Neu stated:
We are aware of the fact that a trade association of which we
are a member, ISRI, along with the Steel Manufacturers Association
(SMA), has commented on the proposed rules and prepared a
presentation which purports to demonstrate that the proposed
containment barriers are not needed to prevent the shifting and
falling of cargo as it relates to flattened cars. Those comments are
directed at attempting to mitigate the proposed standards requiring
either four or three-sided trailers for transport of flattened cars
with other containment requirements. ISRI and SMA have taken the
position that these cars can be safety transported on a flatbed
without walls. We strongly disagree.
FMCSA Response
The FMCSA recognizes the concerns expressed by ISRI and the Steel
Manufacturers Association. However, we believe the proposed rules
concerning the securement of flattened cars should be adopted without
change. While the specific practices for flattening cars ISRI mentioned
may greatly reduce the likelihood that loose pieces will fall from the
commercial motor vehicle transporting the flattened cars, we are not
convinced that the flattening process alone would ensure transportation
safety.
This subject was debated extensively during the public meetings
concerning the development of the model regulations. None of the
information presented by ISRI or the transporters of flattened cars
during those public meetings was convincing to the Federal, State and
Provincial government representatives present, or the other industry
groups represented. Consequently the model regulations included the
language that FMCSA proposed.
We continue to doubt that the degree to which cars are compressed
ensures that none of the components will fall from the cars. The cars
are compressed to a fraction of their original height to make it easier
to transport them to recycling facilities. Most of the parts would be
pressed together but some items such as door handles and mirrors may
remain loosely attached to the vehicle. We believe that having loose
parts is inevitable given that the process of compressing the car will
undoubtedly do more damage to the car than the events that resulted in
the car being turned over for recycling.
A visual inspection, even by drivers or enforcement personnel, is
not sufficient for making a determination whether portions of the load
will vibrate or shake loose while the vehicle is traveling on public
roads. Flattened cars are usually transported on flatbed trailers, and
stacked in such a manner that neither a driver nor an inspector could
determine with any degree of certainty whether there are loose items
without climbing the stack of flattened cars to physically examine the
load. We believe such an exercise would not effectively ensure safety
because of the potential that a loose component could be missed during
the inspection, and because of the risks to drivers and enforcement
personnel associated with climbing stacks of flattened cars.
There is a need for practical requirements for ensuring that
commercial motor vehicles are properly equipped to prevent loose items
that separate from the flattened car during transport from falling onto
the roadway, without relying on risky inspection procedures for drivers
or enforcement personnel. The rules being adopted today provide
practical standards that would ensure that loose components on the
flattened cars do not fall from the transport vehicle.
Visibility Requirements for Drivers of Self-Steer Dollies
The ATA requested that § 392.9(a)(3) include an exception for
drivers of self-steer dollies. These dollies are typically a set of
axles at the rear of a very long load. The cargo being transported
between the truck tractor (or towing unit) and the dolly obscures the
dolly driver's view because the driver is positioned under the load.
The ATA argues that because the driver seated in the dolly is in
contact with the driver in the truck tractor, the safety of the
operation is not compromised by the fact that the load obscures the
view of the dolly operator.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA agrees with the ATA recommendation. Although it is important
for CMV drivers to be capable of seeing other vehicles in the vicinity
of the CMV, the agency does not believe safety would be adversely
affected by cargo obscuring the dolly driver's view directly in front
of him or her. Since the driver with primary control for the operation
of the combination vehicle is in the truck tractor, and the driver in
the truck tractor and dolly are able to communicate, there is no reason
to be that safety would compromised. This is especially the case given
that the commercial vehicle would most likely have escort vehicles.
Discussion of the Final Rule
The rules being adopted are based on the North American Cargo
Securement Standard Model Regulations. The agency is replacing its
current cargo securement-related regulations under § 392.9,
concerning driver inspection of cargo and cargo securement systems, and
§ § 393.100 through 393.106 concerning cargo securement methods.
The agency is also amending § 393.5 to adopt definitions of
aggregate working load limit; anchor point; article of cargo; bell pipe
concrete; blocking; bracing; frame vehicle; friction mat; hook-lift
container; integral securement system; longwood; rail vehicle;
shortwood; sided vehicle; tiedown; tractor-pole trailer; void filler;
well; and working load limit. The agency is adopting these definitions
to ensure a common understanding of the terminology used in the
regulations. The definitions are based on those in the model
regulations.
The FMCSA notes that there are numerous other definitions in the
model regulations. However, the agency continues to believe that it is
not necessary to adopt many of those definitions because the terms are
already defined in the FMCSRs, even though with slightly different
wording.
Inspection of Cargo and Securement Devices
The FMCSA is revising § 392.9 to require that drivers inspect
the cargo and the securement devices within the first 50 miles (80.4
kilometers). Currently, § 392.9 requires inspection within the
first 25 miles (40.2 kilometers). The FMCSA continues to believe that
the research concerning the effects of vibration on cargo securement
devices and changes in the tension of indirect tiedowns, suggests that
conditions of the securement system which would require the driver to
make readjustments are more likely to occur after the vehicle has been
driven between 25 and 50 miles, rather than 0 to 25 miles. This is
because traveling beyond 25 miles would subject the vehicle to more
vibration and forces over a longer period of time. However, the agency
believes the maximum distance the vehicle could be operated safely
prior to the inspection of the tiedowns should not exceed 50 miles. All
other requirements currently contained in § 392.9 would remain the
same.
Applicability of the Final Rule
Section 393.100 establishes the applicability of the cargo
securement rules under subpart I of part 393. The applicability of the
final rule is the same as the existing rule, covering all cargo-
carrying commercial motor vehicles (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5)
operated in interstate commerce.
Performance Criteria
The agency is adopting new performance requirements concerning the
longitudinal, lateral, and vertical accelerations that cargo securement
systems must withstand to satisfy the rules. Acceleration is the rate
at which the speed or velocity of an object increases and deceleration
is the rate at which the velocity decreases. Accelerations are commonly
reported as a proportion of the acceleration due to gravity (g). This
acceleration is 9.81 meters/second/second (32.3 feet/second/second),
which means that the velocity of an object dropped from a high
elevation increases by 9.81 meters/second (32.3 feet/second). The FMCSA
requires that cargo securement systems be capable of withstanding the
following three forces, applied separately:
(1) 0.8 g deceleration in the forward direction;
(2) 0.5 g acceleration in the rearward direction; and
(3) 0.5 g acceleration in a lateral direction.
The values chosen are based on the researchers' analysis of
previous studies concerning commercial motor vehicle performance. The
analysis indicated that the highest deceleration likely for an empty or
lightly loaded vehicle with an antilock brake system, all brakes
properly adjusted, and warmed to provide optimal braking performance,
is in the range of 0.8-0.85 g. However, a typical loaded vehicle would
not be expected to achieve a deceleration greater than 0.6 g on a dry
road.
The typical lateral acceleration while driving a curve or ramp at
the posted advisory speed is in the range 0.05-0.17 g. Loaded vehicles
with a high center of gravity roll over at a lateral acceleration above
0.35 g. Lightly loaded vehicles, or heavily loaded vehicles with a
lower center of gravity, may withstand lateral acceleration forces
greater than 0.50 g. We continue to believe that the information
presented by the researchers supports the use of the decelerations
listed above.
Generally, motor carriers are not required to conduct testing of
cargo securement systems to determine compliance with the performance
requirement. Section 393.102 explicitly states that cargo that is
immobilized or secured in accordance with general rules regarding cargo
securement systems, or the commodity-specific rules, are considered to
meet the performance criteria.
Safe and Proper Working Condition for Tiedowns
The final rule includes a requirement that all vehicle structures,
systems, parts, and components used to secure cargo must be in proper
working order when used to perform that function with no damaged or
weakened components that could adversely effect their performance. This
requirement differs from the proposed rule in that the defect or
deficiency must be capable of having an adverse effect on the
performance of the cargo securement system before the prohibition would
apply. The proposal would have prohibited the use of cargo securement
devices with any visible damage, including but not limited to, cracks,
cuts and deformation, regardless of whether there was any reason to
believe there would be a safety problem. We carefully considered the
numerous comments on the proposed language, and have made appropriate
revision to the rule.
Standards for Tiedowns
The current FMCSRs incorporate by reference manufacturing standards
for certain types of tiedowns including steel strapping, chain,
synthetic webbing, wire rope, and cordage. The FMCSA is updating its
reference to the National Association of Chain Manufacturers' (NACM)
Welded Steel Chain Specifications, June 15, 1990, edition to
incorporate by reference the November 15, 1999, version. The agency
notes that some of the working load limit values in the 1999 version
differ slightly from those in the 1990 version. Also, the 1999 version
includes working load limits for a new grade of alloy chain, grade 100.
The agency is also changing its reference for synthetic webbing
from the 1991 edition to the 1998 edition of the Web Sling and Tiedown
Association's publication. Generally, the working load limits are the
same as those in the 1991 publication.
Combining Requirements for Load Binders, Attachment Points and Winches
The agency had proposed that § § 393.112, 393.114, and
393.116 provide requirements for load binders and associated hardware,
attachment points on commercial motor vehicles for tiedowns, and
winches of fastening devices, respectively. Upon careful review of the
proposed requirements and in response to numerous comments about the
apparent redundancy with the general requirements under
§ § 393.104(c), and 393.106(d), the final rule does not include
the proposed wording that appeared in those sections. The remaining
sections of the final rule have been renumbered accordingly.
Securement of Intermodal Containers and the Contents of Such Containers
The FMCSA is adopting commodity-specific requirements which would
apply to intermodal cargo containers. The requirements being adopted
today includes a provision allowing motor carriers the option of
attaching tiedowns to the upper corners of loaded containers. The
proposal would have required that all tiedowns be attached to the lower
corners of the loaded containers. The agency agreed with commenters
concerns about the need for flexibility in securing the containers.
The agency is including in the final rule a provision concerning
the transportation of empty intermodal containers. Upon careful review
of the model regulations and previously issued regulatory guidance, the
agency determined that a less stringent provision concerning the
securement of empty containers should be included. Empty intermodal
containers have been transported safely on vehicles other than
container chassis for many years. Frequently, the container(s) may
overhand the front or rear of the trailer. However, as long the
containers are properly secured, motor carriers have been allowed to
transport them in this manner. Since the empty containers are a
fraction of the weight of fully laden containers, the securement
methods needed to ensure safety are not as extensive as with loaded
containers. The new language concerning empty containers is provided in
§ 393.126(d).
The agency is also adopting specific rules for metal coils
transported in intermodal cargo containers. The agency does not believe
the rules will create difficulties for motor carriers or shippers
offering loaded containers for transportation.
For example, § 392.9(a) requires drivers to assure themselves
that cargo is properly distributed and adequately secured before
operating a commercial motor vehicle. Section 392.9(b) requires drivers
to examine the cargo and load-securing devices during the trip and make
adjustments when necessary to maintain the security of the load.
Section 392.9(b) provides an exception for driver's of sealed
commercial motor vehicles who have been ordered not to open the vehicle
to inspect its cargo, or to drivers of vehicles loaded in a manner that
makes inspection of the cargo impracticable. The requirements of §
392.9 when combined with the explicit requirements concerning the
securement of the contents inside intermodal containers would make it
clear that each motor carrier and each driver must ensure that such
loads are properly secured, when it is practicable to inspect the
condition of loading.
Front End Structures on CMVs
Although the model regulations do not include a provision
concerning front end structures (i.e., headerboards) used as part of a
cargo securement system, the FMCSA is retaining its current front-end
structure rules for CMVs. The FMCSA is, however, revising its current
rule (§ 393.106) by changing the applicability to cover CMVs
transporting cargo that is in contact with the front-end structure of
the vehicle. By contrast, the current rule establishes requirements
for, and requires that vehicles be equipped with, front-end structures
irrespective of whether the device is being used as part of a cargo
securement system.
The current rules emphasize occupant protection rather than cargo
securement. They assume that cargo that is not braced against a front-
end structure could shift forward, and the structure would prevent the
load from penetrating the driver's compartment. While this concept may
have merit for certain types of cargo, we continue to believe that the
best way to ensure driver safety is to have tougher standards to
prevent the cargo from shifting forward. For example, if the vehicle is
transporting metal coils, once the load begins to move forward, it is
unlikely that a front-end structure would save the driver. However, by
establishing new rules to better ensure that the coils do not move
forward, we are more likely to accomplish the safety objective of
saving lives and preventing injuries.
Specific Securement Requirements by Commodity Type
The FMCSA is adopting detailed requirements for the securement of
the following commodities: logs; dressed lumber; metal coils; paper
rolls; concrete pipe; intermodal containers; automobiles, light trucks
and vans; heavy vehicles, equipment and machinery; flattened or crushed
vehicles; roll-on/roll-off containers; and large boulders. During
public meetings concerning the development of the model regulations,
participants said that these commodities cause the most disagreement
between industry and enforcement agencies as to what is required for
proper securement.
The FMCSA notes that each of these commodities must be properly
secured under the current performance-based cargo securement rules.
However, with the exception of metal coils, there is no detailed
guidance for motor carriers and enforcement officials. We continue to
believe that accidents may be prevented through the establishment of
much more detailed rules that clearly spell out what is required to
achieve the desired level of safety. The rules would eliminate most of
the confusion about what constitutes an acceptable cargo securement
system.
The FMCSA notes that the requirements for the securement of
concrete pipe being adopted today does not include the provision
requiring that ice be removed from pipe before it is loaded. The agency
no longer believes that provision is necessary because most shipments
of concrete pipe would not be covered with ice, and in those cases
where ice was present, there may be no practicable means of deicing the
pipe prior to it being loaded onto a CMV. Most shippers of concrete
pipe would ensure to the greatest extent practicable that the pipe is
not covered with ice immediately prior to transport. For those cases in
which exposure to ice could not be avoided, motor carriers are strongly
encouraged to take appropriate actions to ensure that load is properly
secured before transport. However, the agency does not believe it is
necessary to make the mere presence of any amount of ice on a concrete
pipe a violation of the FMCSRs.
Use of Unmarked Tiedowns
The final rule does not include a prohibition on the use of
unmarked tiedown devices. Although many of the participants in the
harmonization group meetings and numerous commenters to the NPRM argue
that the Federal cargo securement rules should include such a
prohibition, we do not believe it is appropriate to establish such a
rule at this time.
Before establishing a prohibition on the use of unmarked tiedowns,
the FMCSA would have to quantify the potential economic burden on the
motor carrier industry and those involved with the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of unmarked securement devices. Since the FMCSA has no
reliable information on the number of manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers of unmarked tiedowns, the quality or strength of such
devices, or the amount of these tiedowns currently in use by motor
carriers and in retailers' stock, it would be inappropriate to prohibit
these devices. However, in view of the potential safety hazards of
motor carriers misidentifying unmarked tiedowns, the final rule
includes a provision that unmarked welded steel
chain be considered to have a working load limit equal to that of grade
30 proof coil, and other types of unmarked tiedowns be considered to
have a working load limit equal to the lowest rating for that type in
the table of working load limits.
Rating and Marking of Anchor Points
The final rule does not include a requirement that anchor points be
rated and marked. While we continue to agree with the basic principle
of rating and marking of anchor points, there is insufficient data to
support establishing manufacturing standards at this time. As we
indicated above, we will continue to work with the TTMA and other
private sector groups to gather information about the extent to which
trailer manufacturers follow the TTMA's recommended practice concerning
rating and marking of anchor points. As we gather this information, we
will consider the need for any future standards development work in
this area.
Development of Training Program
The agencies and organizations participating in the North American
Cargo Securement Program have established a Training and Education
Committee responsible for developing a training package for motor
carriers and enforcement officials to ensure that the model regulations
now being considered for adoption throughout North America are
understood by all affected parties. The training package will cover all
of the requirements in the model regulations, and to some extent, best
practices for securing cargo. The training materials may be used to
help motor carriers better understand how to properly secure different
types of cargo and to ensure they are aware of what is required.
Enforcement officials could also use the training material to ensure
that they have an understanding of the new requirements. It is
anticipated that the training materials will be completed and available
to the public from the FMCSA before the deadline for compliance with
the final rule. The FMCSA will post publications on its website to
assist individuals with Internet access. The FMCSA will also consider
making copies of the training materials available through the U.S.
Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service.
Compliance Date
The FMCSA has chosen January 1, 2004, as the deadline for motor
carriers to ensure compliance with the final rule. The FMCSA believes
this time frame is appropriate and will provide motor carriers and
enforcement officials sufficient time to prepare for the transition
from the current requirements to rules compatible with the model
regulations.
Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or within
the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and
procedures. Neither the level of public or Congressional interest, nor
the costs of implementing the final rule are such that the rule would
be considered significant. Based on the information currently
available, the cost to the motor carrier industry for compliance with
the rules, and the cost to the States for adopting and enforcing the
new requirements will be significantly less than the $100,000,000
threshold used as one of the factors in determining the significance of
a rulemaking.
This rule requires that motor carriers operating in interstate
commerce comply with improved cargo securement regulations based on the
following: (1) The results of a multi-year comprehensive research
program to evaluate current U.S. and Canadian cargo securement
regulations; (2) the motor carrier industry's best practices; and (3)
recommendations presented during a series of public meetings.
Generally, the revision requires motor carriers to change the way cargo
securement devices are used to prevent certain articles from shifting
on or within, or falling from, CMVs, and how calculations are done. In
some instances, the changes require motor carriers to increase the
number of tiedown devices used to secure certain types of cargoes.
The agency believes the vast majority of motor carriers have a
sufficient supply of tiedown devices on board their vehicles at all
times. The final rule allows motor carriers to continue using those
tiedowns provided the devices meet the applicable manufacturing
standards currently incorporated by reference in § 393.102(b).
Most of the costs associated with this rulemaking are believed to
be associated with the training of drivers, motor carrier employees
responsible for loading CMVs, and enforcement officials to ensure that
they understand the requirements being adopted. However, this cost
should be minimal because the commodity-specific rules have been
drafted to enable the reader to use the rules as step-by-step
instructions for securing the commodity being transported.
With regard to costs to the States to train inspectors, the agency
is working with its State and Provincial partners to develop training
materials that could be used to minimize the costs for the enforcement
community and the motor carrier industry. For States participating in
the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), training costs are
considered an eligible expense. This means the States could receive
Federal funds to help cover the costs of training their roadside
inspectors. Therefore, based upon the information above, the agency
estimates that the economic impact associated with this rulemaking
action would be minimal and a full regulatory evaluation is not
necessary.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FMCSA has considered the effects of this regulatory action on
small entities and determined that this rule would affect a substantial
number of small entities but would not have a significant impact on
them.
Generally, the final rule requires motor carriers to change the way
cargo securement devices are used to prevent certain articles from
shifting on or within, or falling from, CMVs. In some instances, the
rule requires motor carriers to increase the number of tiedown devices
used to secure certain types of cargoes. However, the rule does not
require motor carriers to purchase new equipment.
The FMCSA finds that the vast majority of motor carriers have a
sufficient supply of tiedown devices on board their vehicles at all
times.
The agency believes the number of tiedowns on board and the
strength of these devices are usually sufficient to secure whatever
types of loads the motor carrier is transporting, or intends to
transport. As we stated in the preamble to the notice of proposed
rulemaking, the cargo securement problems typically observed during
roadside inspections of flatbed trailers are ones in which motor
carriers do not use enough of the tiedowns that they already have on
board their vehicles. In the case of van type trailers, the problem is
that some motor carriers do not use any securement devices to prevent
loads from shifting. Therefore, FMCSA believes that motor carriers
already have all the hardware they need to comply with the proposed
changes. The challenge for motor carriers is to learn how to properly
use tiedown devices to
further reduce the occurrence of cargo securement-related accidents.
Motor carriers are currently required to use tiedown devices that
meet applicable manufacturing standards incorporated by reference in
§ 393.102(b). Under the final rule, the agency is continuing to
require motor carriers to use only tiedown devices that meet
manufacturing standards currently specified § 393.102(b). If the
tiedowns are in safe and proper condition, and meet the applicable
manufacturing standards, use of the devices is not prohibited by this
rule.
As indicated above, additional costs may be associated with
training of motor carrier employees responsible for loading CMVs,
drivers, and enforcement officials to ensure that they understand the
requirements being considered. The final rule does not adopt the
provisions in the NPRM that distinguish between direct and indirect
tiedowns. This means that there are very few aspects, if any, of the
new requirements that differ significantly from the technical concepts
in the current rules, and the best practices of the motor carrier
industry. However, training may be desirable for some individuals. It
is more likely than not that compliance with the final rule could be
achieved with a minimal amount of training. This is because the
commodity-specific rules have been drafted to enable the reader to use
the rules as step-by-step instructions for securing the commodity being
transported.
For motor carriers that provide training for their drivers, the
costs could vary with the number of hours for training, and the number
of drivers being trained. At a minimum, training costs would include
wages for the drivers. The FMCSA reviewed earnings information from the
U.S. Department of Labor. The FMCSA used the "Occupational Outlook
Handbook," 2000-01 Edition, Bulletin 2520. The median hourly earnings
of drivers of light and heavy trucks were $11.67 in 1998. The middle 50
percent earned between $8.80 and $15.57 an hour. The lowest 10 percent
earned less than $6.51 and the highest 10 percent earned more than
$19.14 an hour.
If a motor carrier provided one hour of training for 10 drivers in
the middle 50 percent, the maximum cost would be $155.70 (10 drivers x
$15.57 an hour per driver x 1 hour) in wages for the drivers to attend
training, plus the cost for the instructor and course materials. If the
training for the same group of drivers was expanded to four hours the
cost would be $622.80 (10 drivers x $15.57 an hour per driver x 4
hours) in wages for the drivers to attend training, plus the cost for
the instructor, and course materials. If the drivers earned $20 an
hour, the costs for the group of drivers to attend class for 4 hours
would be $800. These examples indicate how the costs per motor carrier
could vary greatly depending on the number of drivers to be trained,
and the amount of training required.
The FMCSA cannot determine at this time the amount of training
drivers and other motor carrier employees may need. However, the agency
estimates that for a small entity employing 10 drivers the costs would
not exceed $1,000 ($800 for drivers' wages + $200 for the instructor
and course materials). The agency believes the economic impact on such
motor carriers of these training costs will be minimal.
Accordingly, the FMCSA has considered the economic impacts of the
requirements on small entities and certifies that this rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined
by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.),
that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
The FMCSA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. It has been determined
that this rulemaking does not have a substantial direct effect on
States, nor would it limit the policy-making discretion of the States.
Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor
Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and
activities do not apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain a collection of information
requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is a new
administration within the Department of Transportation (DOT). We are
striving to meet all of the statutory and executive branch requirements
on rulemaking. The FMCSA is currently developing an agency order that
will comply with all statutory and regulatory policies under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We
expect the draft FMCSA Order to appear in the Federal Register for
public comment in the near future. The framework of the FMCSA Order is
consistent with and reflects the procedures for considering
environmental impacts under DOT Order 5610.1C. The FMCSA analyzed this
final rule under the NEPA and DOT Order 5610.1C. Since the final rule
relates only to the way motor carriers use cargo securement devices to
prevent certain articles from shifting on or within, or falling from
CMVs, we believe it would be among the type of regulations that would
be categorically excluded from any environmental assessment.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use. We have determined that it is not a "significant
energy action" under that order because it is not economically
significant and is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 392
Highway safety, Motor carriers.
49 CFR Part 393
Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers, Motor
vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FMCSA is amending title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, as follows:
PART 392--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 392 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73.
2. Section 392.9 is revised to read as follows:
§ 392.9 Inspection of cargo, cargo securement devices and systems.
(a) General. A driver may not operate a commercial motor vehicle
and a motor carrier may not require or permit a driver to operate a
commercial motor vehicle unless--
(1) The commercial motor vehicle's cargo is properly distributed
and adequately secured as specified in § § 393.100 through
393.142 of this subchapter.
(2) The commercial motor vehicle's tailgate, tailboard, doors,
tarpaulins, spare tire and other equipment used in its operation, and
the means of fastening the commercial motor vehicle's cargo, are
secured; and
(3) The commercial motor vehicle's cargo or any other object does
not obscure the driver's view ahead or to the right or left sides
(except for drivers of self-steer dollies), interfere with the free
movement of his/her arms or legs, prevent his/her free and ready access
to accessories required for emergencies, or prevent the free and ready
exit of any person from the commercial motor vehicle's cab or driver's
compartment.
(b) Drivers of trucks and truck tractors. Except as provided in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the driver of a truck or truck
tractor must--
(1) Assure himself/herself that the provisions of paragraph (a) of
this section have been complied with before he/she drives that
commercial motor vehicle;
(2) Inspect the cargo and the devices used to secure the cargo
within the first 50 miles after beginning a trip and cause any
adjustments to be made to the cargo or load securement devices as
necessary, including adding more securement devices, to ensure that
cargo cannot shift on or within, or fall from the commercial motor
vehicle; and
(3) Reexamine the commercial motor vehicle's cargo and its load
securement devices during the course of transportation and make any
necessary adjustment to the cargo or load securement devices, including
adding more securement devices, to ensure that cargo cannot shift on or
within, or fall from, the commercial motor vehicle. Reexamination and
any necessary adjustments must be made whenever --
(i) The driver makes a change of his/her duty status; or
(ii) The commercial motor vehicle has been driven for 3 hours; or
(iii) The commercial motor vehicle has been driven for 150 miles,
whichever occurs first.
(4) The rules in this paragraph (b) do not apply to the driver of a
sealed commercial motor vehicle who has been ordered not to open it to
inspect its cargo or to the driver of a commercial motor vehicle that
has been loaded in a manner that makes inspection of its cargo
impracticable.
PART 393--[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914;
49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73.
4. Amend § 393.5 to add the following definitions in
alphabetical order:
§ 393.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Aggregate working load limit. The summation of the working load
limits or restraining capacity of all devices used to secure an article
of cargo on a vehicle.
* * * * *
Anchor point. Part of the structure, fitting or attachment on a
vehicle or article of cargo to which a tiedown is attached.
* * * * *
Article of cargo. A unit of cargo, other than a liquid, gas, or
aggregate that lacks physical structure (e.g., grain, gravel, etc.)
including articles grouped together so that they can be handled as a
single unit or unitized by wrapping, strapping, banding or edge
protection device(s).
* * * * *
Bell pipe concrete. Pipe whose flanged end is of larger diameter
than its barrel.
Blocking. A structure, device or another substantial article placed
against or around an article of cargo to prevent horizontal movement of
the article of cargo.
Bracing. A structure, device, or another substantial article placed
against an article of cargo to prevent it from tipping, that may also
prevent it from shifting.
* * * * *
Dunnage. All loose materials used to support and protect cargo.
Dunnage bag. An inflatable bag intended to fill otherwise empty
space between articles of cargo, or between articles of cargo and the
wall of the vehicle.
* * * * *
Edge protector. A device placed on the exposed edge of an article
to distribute tiedown forces over a larger area of cargo than the
tiedown itself, to protect the tie-down and/or cargo from damage, and
to allow the tiedown to slide freely when being tensioned.
* * * * *
Frame vehicle. A vehicle with skeletal structure fitted with one or
more bunk units for transporting logs. A bunk unit consists of U-shaped
front and rear bunks that together cradle logs. The bunks are welded,
gusseted or otherwise firmly fastened to the vehicle's main beams, and
are an integral part of the vehicle.
Friction mat. A device placed between the deck of a vehicle and
article of cargo, or between articles of cargo, intended to provide
greater friction than exists naturally between these surfaces.
* * * * *
g. The acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 ft/sec2 (9.823 m/
sec2).
* * * * *
Hook-lift container. A specialized container, primarily used to
contain and transport materials in the waste, recycling, construction/
demolition and scrap industries, which is used in conjunction with
specialized vehicles, in which the container is loaded and unloaded
onto a tilt frame body by an articulating hook-arm.
* * * * *
Integral securement system. A system on certain roll-on/roll-off
containers and hook-lift containers and their related transport
vehicles in which compatible front and rear hold down devices are mated
to provide securement of the complete vehicle and its articles of
cargo.
* * * * *
Longwood. All logs that are not shortwood, i.e., are over 4.9 m (16
feet) long. Such logs are usually described as long logs or treelength.
* * * * *
Rail vehicle. A vehicle whose skeletal structure is fitted with
stakes at the front
and rear to contain logs loaded crosswise.
* * * * *
Shoring bar. A device placed transversely between the walls of a
vehicle and cargo to prevent cargo from tipping or shifting.
Shortwood. All logs typically up to 4.9 m (16 feet) long. Such logs
are often described as cut-up logs, cut-to-length logs, bolts or
pulpwood. Shortwood may be loaded lengthwise or crosswise, though that
loaded crosswise is usually no more than 2.6 m (102 inches) long.
* * * * *
Sided vehicle. A vehicle whose cargo compartment is enclosed on all
four sides by walls of sufficient strength to contain articles of
cargo, where the walls may include latched openings for loading and
unloading, and includes vans, dump bodies, and a sided intermodal
container carried by a vehicle.
* * * * *
Tiedown. A combination of securing devices which forms an assembly
that attaches articles of cargo to, or restrains articles of cargo on,
a vehicle or trailer, and is attached to anchor point(s).
Tractor-pole trailer. A combination vehicle that carries logs
lengthwise so that they form the body of the vehicle. The logs are
supported by a bunk located on the rear of the tractor, and another
bunk on the skeletal trailer. The tractor bunk may rotate about a
vertical axis, and the trailer may have a fixed, scoping, or cabled
reach, or other mechanical freedom, to allow it to turn.
* * * * *
Void filler. Material used to fill a space between articles of
cargo and the structure of the vehicle that has sufficient strength to
prevent movement of the articles of cargo.
* * * * *
Well. The depression formed between two cylindrical articles of
cargo when they are laid with their eyes horizontal and parallel
against each other.
* * * * *
Working load limit (WLL). The maximum load that may be applied to a
component of a cargo securement system during normal service, usually
assigned by the manufacturer of the component.
5. Section 393.7 is revised as follows:
§ 393.7 Matter incorporated by reference.
(a) Incorporation by reference. Part 393 includes references to
certain matter or materials, as listed in paragraph (b) of this
section. The text of the materials is not included in the regulations
contained in part 393. The materials are hereby made a part of the
regulations in part 393. The Director of the Federal Register has
approved the materials incorporated by reference in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. For materials subject to change, only
the specific version approved by the Director of the Federal Register
and specified in the regulation are incorporated. Material is
incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval and a notice of
any change in these materials will be published in the Federal
Register.
(b) Matter or materials referenced in part 393. The matter or
materials listed in this paragraph are incorporated by reference in the
corresponding sections noted.
(1) Highway Emergency Signals, Fourth Edition, Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., UL No. 912, July 30, 1979, (with an amendment dated
November 9, 1981), incorporation by reference approved for §
393.95(j).
(2) Standard Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals,
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), D3953-97, February
1998, incorporation by reference approved for § 393.104(e).
(3) Welded Steel Chain Specifications, National Association of
Chain Manufacturers, November 15, 1999, incorporation by reference
approved for § 393.104(e).
(4) Recommended Standard Specification for Synthetic Web Tiedowns,
Web Sling and Tiedown Association, WSTDA-T1, 1998, incorporation by
reference approved for § 393.104(e).
(5) Wire Rope Users Manual, 2nd Edition, Wire Rope Technical Board
November 1985, incorporation by reference approved for §
393.104(e).
(6) Cordage Institute rope standards approved for incorporation
into § 393.104(e):
(i) PETRS-2, Polyester Fiber Rope, 3-Strand and 8-Strand
Constructions, January 1993;
(ii) PPRS-2, Polypropylene Fiber Rope, 3-Strand and 8-Strand
Constructions, August 1992;
(iii) CRS-1, Polyester/Polypropylene Composite Rope Specifications,
Three-Strand and Eight-Strand Standard Construction, May 1979;
(iv) NRS-1, Nylon Rope Specifications, Three-Strand and Eight-
Strand Standard Construction, May 1979; and
(v) C-1, Double Braided Nylon Rope Specifications DBN, January
1984.
(c) Availability. The materials incorporated by reference are
available as follows:
(1) Standards of the Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Information
and copies may be obtained by writing to: Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, Illinois 60062.
(2) Specifications of the American Society for Testing and
Materials. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to:
American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428-2959.
(3) Specifications of the National Association of Chain
Manufacturers. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to:
National Association of Chain Manufacturers, P.O. Box 22681, Lehigh
Valley, Pennsylvania 18002-2681.
(4) Specifications of the Web Sling and Tiedown Association.
Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: Web Sling and
Tiedown Association, Inc., 5024-R Campbell Boulevard, Baltimore,
Maryland 21236-5974.
(5) Manuals of the Wire Rope Technical Board. Information and
copies may be obtained by writing to: Wire Rope Technical Committee,
P.O. Box 849, Stevensville, Maryland 21666.
(6) Standards of the Cordage Institute. Information and copies may
be obtained by writing to: Cordage Institute, 350 Lincoln Street,
115, Hingham, Massachusetts 02043.
(7)-(9) [Reserved].
(10) All of the materials incorporated by reference are available
for inspection at:
(i) The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Bus
and Truck Standards and Operations, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590; and
(ii) The Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,
NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC.
6. Section 393.95(j) is amended by replacing the reference to
"§ 393.7(b)" with "§ 393.7(c)."
7. Subpart I of part 393 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart I--Protection Against Shifting and Falling Cargo
§ 393.100 Which types of commercial motor vehicles are subject
to the cargo securement standards of this subpart, and what general
requirements apply?
393.102 What are the minimum performance criteria for cargo
securement devices and systems?
393.104 What standards must cargo securement devices and systems
meet in order to satisfy the requirements of this subpart?
393.106 What are the general requirements for securing articles of
cargo?
393.108 How is the working load limit of a tiedown determined?
393.110 What else do I have to do to determine the minimum number of
tiedowns?
393.112 Must a tiedown be adjustable?
393.114 What are the requirements for front end structures used as
part of a cargo securement system?
Specific Securement Requirements by Commodity Type
393.116 What are the rules for securing logs?
393.118 What are the rules for securing dressed lumber or similar
building products?
393.120 What are the rules for securing metal coils?
393.122 What are the rules for securing paper rolls?
393.124 What are the rules for securing concrete pipe?
393.126 What are the rules for securing intermodal containers?
393.128 What are the rules for securing automobiles, light trucks
and vans?
393.130 What are the rules for securing heavy vehicles, equipment
and machinery?
393.132 What are the rules for securing flattened or crushed
vehicles?
393.134 What are the rules for securing roll-on/roll-off and hook
lift containers?
393.136 What are the rules for securing large boulders?
§ 393.100 Which types of commercial motor vehicles are subject to
the cargo securement standards of this subpart, and what general
requirements apply?
(a) Applicability. The rules in this subpart are applicable to
trucks, truck tractors, semitrailers, full trailers, and pole trailers.
(b) Prevention against loss of load. Each commercial motor vehicle
must, when transporting cargo on public roads, be loaded and equipped,
and the cargo secured, in accordance with this subpart to prevent the
cargo from leaking, spilling, blowing or falling from the motor
vehicle.
(c) Prevention against shifting of load. Cargo must be contained,
immobilized or secured in accordance with this subpart to prevent
shifting upon or within the vehicle to such an extent that the
vehicle's stability or maneuverability is adversely affected.
§ 393.102 What are the minimum performance criteria for cargo
securement devices and systems?
(a) Performance criteria. Cargo securement devices and systems must
be capable of withstanding the following three forces, applied
separately:
(1) 0.8 g deceleration in the forward direction;
(2) 0.5 g acceleration in the rearward direction; and
(3) 0.5 g acceleration in a lateral direction.
(b) Performance criteria for devices to prevent vertical movement
of loads that are not contained within the structure of the vehicle.
Securement systems must provide a downward force equivalent to at least
20 percent of the weight of the article of cargo if the article is not
fully contained within the structure of the vehicle. If the article is
fully contained within the structure of the vehicle, it may be secured
in accordance with § 393.106(b).
(c) Prohibition on exceeding working load limits. Cargo securement
devices and systems must be designed, installed, and maintained to
ensure that the maximum forces acting on the devices or systems do not
exceed the working load limit for the devices under the conditions
listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(d) Equivalent means of securement. Cargo that is immobilized, or
secured in accordance with the applicable requirements of § §
393.104 through 393.136, is considered as meeting the performance
criteria of this section.
§ 393.104 What standards must cargo securement devices and systems
meet in order to satisfy the requirements of this subpart?
(a) General. All devices and systems used to secure cargo to or
within a vehicle must be capable of meeting the requirements of §
393.102.
(b) Prohibition on the use of damaged securement devices. All
vehicle structures, systems, parts, and components used to secure cargo
must be in proper working order when used to perform that function with
no damaged or weakened components that will adversely effect their
performance for cargo securement purposes, including reducing the
working load limit, and must not have any cracks or cuts.
(c) Vehicle structures and anchor points. Vehicle structures,
floors, walls, decks, tiedown anchor points, headerboards, bulkheads,
stakes, posts and associated mounting pockets used to contain or secure
articles of cargo must be strong enough to meet the performance
criteria of § 393.102, with no damaged or weakened components that
will adversely effect their performance for cargo securement purposes,
including reducing the working load limit, and must not have any cracks
or cuts.
(d) Material for dunnage, chocks, cradles, shoring bars, blocking
and bracing. Material used as dunnage or dunnage bags, chocks, cradles,
shoring bars, or used for blocking and bracing, must not have damage or
defects which would compromise the effectiveness of the securement
system.
(e) Manufacturing standards for tiedown assemblies. Tiedown
assemblies (including chains, wire rope, steel strapping, synthetic
webbing, and cordage) and other attachment or fastening devices used to
secure articles of cargo to, or in, commercial motor vehicles must
conform to the following applicable standards:
| An assembly component of |
Must conform to |
| (1) Steel strapping 1, 2 |
Standard Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel
and Seals, American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) D3953-97, February 1998.4 |
| (2) Chain |
National Association of Chain Manufacturers' Welded
Steel Chain Specifications, November 15, 1999.4 |
| (3) Webbing |
Web Sling and Tiedown Association's Recommended
Standard Specification for Synthetic Web Tiedowns,
WSTDA-T1, 1998.4
|
| (4) Wire rope 3 |
Wire Rope Technical Board's Wire Rope Users Manual,2nd Edition, November 1985.4
|
| (5) Cordage |
Cordage Institute rope standard:
(i) PETRS-2, Polyester Fiber Rope, three-Strand
and eight-Strand Constructions, January 1993;
4
(ii) PPRS-2, Polypropylene Fiber Rope, three-
Strand and eight-Strand Constructions, August
1992; 4
(iii) CRS-1, Polyester/Polypropylene Composite
Rope Specifications, three-Strand and eight-
Strand Standard Construction, May 1979; 4
(iv) NRS-1, Nylon Rope Specifications, three-
Strand and eight-Strand Standard Construction,
May 1979; 4 and
(v) C-1, Double Braided Nylon Rope
Specifications DBN, January 1984.4
|
1 Steel strapping not marked by the manufacturer with a working load limit
will be considered to have a
working load limit equal to one-fourth of the breaking strength listed in ASTM
D3953-97.
2 Steel strapping 25.4 mm (1 inch) or wider must have at least two pairs of
crimps in each seal and, when an
end-over-end lap joint is formed, must be sealed with at least two seals.
3 Wire rope which is not marked by the manufacturer with a working load limit
shall be considered to have a
working load limit equal to one-fourth of the nominal strength listed in the
manual.
4 See § 393.7 for information on the incorporation by reference and availability
of this document.
(f) Use of tiedowns. (1) Tiedowns and securing devices must not
contain knots.
(2) If a tiedown is repaired, it must be repaired in accordance
with the applicable standards in paragraph (e) of this section, or the
manufacturer's instructions.
(3) Each tiedown must be attached and secured in a manner that
prevents it from becoming loose, unfastening, opening or releasing
while the vehicle is in transit.
(4) All tiedowns and other components of a cargo securement system
used to secure loads on a trailer equipped with rub rails, must be
located inboard of the rub rails whenever practicable.
(5) Edge protection must be used whenever a tiedown would be
subject to abrasion or cutting at the point where it touches an article
of cargo. The edge protection must resist abrasion, cutting and
crushing.
§ 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 § 393.122
through § 393.142. The commodity-specific rules take precedence
over the general requirements of this section when additional
requirements are given for a commodity listed in those sections.
(b) General. Cargo must be firmly immobilized or secured on or
within a vehicle by structures of adequate strength, dunnage or dunnage
bags, shoring bars, tiedowns or a combination of these.
(c) Cargo placement and restraint. (1) Articles of cargo that are
likely to roll must be restrained by chocks, wedges, a cradle or other
equivalent means to prevent rolling. The means of preventing rolling
must not be capable of becoming unintentionally unfastened or loose
while the vehicle is in transit.
(2) Articles or cargo placed beside each other and secured by
transverse tiedowns must either:
(i) Be placed in direct contact with each other, or
(ii) Be prevented from shifting towards each other while in
transit.
(d) Minimum strength of cargo securement devices and systems. The
aggregate working load limit of any securement system used to secure an
article or group of articles against movement must be at least one-half
times the weight of the article or group of articles. The aggregate
working load limit is the sum of:
(1) One-half of the working load limit of each associated connector
or attachment mechanism used to secure a part of the article of cargo
to the vehicle; and
(2) One-half of the working load limit for each end section of a
tiedown that is attached to an anchor point.
§ 393.108 How is the working load limit of a tiedown determined?
(a) The working load limit (WLL) of a tiedown, associated connector
or attachment mechanism is the lowest working load limit of any of its
components (including tensioner), or the working load limit of the
anchor points to which it is attached, whichever is less.
(b) The working load limits of tiedowns may be determined by using
either the tiedown manufacturer's markings or by using the tables in
this section. The working load limits listed in the tables are to be
used when the tiedown material is not marked by the manufacturer with
the working load limit. Tiedown materials which are marked by the
manufacturer with working load limits that differ from the tables,
shall be considered to have a working load limit equal to the value for
which they are marked.
(c) Synthetic cordage (e.g., nylon, polypropylene, polyester) which
is not marked or labeled to enable identification of its composition or
working load limit shall be considered to have a working load limit
equal to that for polypropylene fiber rope.
(d) Welded steel chain which is not marked or labeled to enable
identification of its grade or working load limit shall be considered
to have a working load limit equal to that for grade 30 proof coil
chain.
(e)(1) Wire rope which is not marked by the manufacturer with a
working load limit shall be considered to have a working load limit
equal to one-fourth of the nominal strength listed in the Wire Rope
Users Manual.
(2) Wire which is not marked or labeled to enable identification of
its construction type shall be considered to have a working load limit
equal to that for 6 x 37, fiber core wire rope.
(f) Manila rope which is not marked by the manufacturer with a
working load limit shall be considered to have a working load limit
based on its diameter as provided in the tables of working load limits.
(g) Friction mats which are not marked or rated by the manufacturer
shall be considered to provide resistance to horizontal movement equal
to 50 percent of the weight placed on the mat.?
Tables to § 393.108
[Working Load Limits (WLL), Chain]
| Size mm (inches) |
WLL in kg (pounds) |
| Grade 30 proof coil |
Grade 43 high test |
Grade 70 transport |
Grade 80 alloy |
Grade 100 alloy |
| 1. 7 (1/4) |
580 (1,300) |
1,180 (2,600) |
1,430 (3,150) |
1,570 (3,500) |
1,950 (4,300) |
| 2. 8 (5/16) |
860 (1,900) |
1,770 (3,900) |
2,130 (4,700) |
2,000 (4,500) |
2,600 (5,700) |
| 3. 10 (3/8) |
1,200 (2,650) |
2,450 (5,400) |
2,990 (6,600) |
3,200 (7,100) |
4,000 (8,800) |
| 4. 11 (7/16) |
1,680 (3,700) |
3,270 (7,200) |
3,970 (8,750) |
|
|
| 5. 13 (1/2) |
2,030 (4,500) |
4,170 (9,200) |
5,130 (11,300) |
5,400 (12,000) |
6,800 (15,000) |
| 6. 16 (5/8) |
3,130 (6,900) |
5,910 (13,000) |
7,170 (15,800) |
8,200 (18,100) |
10,300 (22,600) |
| Chain Mark Examples: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Example 1 |
3 |
4 |
7 |
8 |
10 |
| Example 2 |
30 |
43 |
70 |
80 |
100 |
| Example 3 |
300 |
430 |
700 |
800 |
1000 |
Synthetic Webbing
Width mm (inches) |
WLL kg (pounds) |
| 45 (13/4) |
790 (1,750) |
| 50 (2) |
910 (2,000) |
| 75 (3) |
1,360 (3,000) |
| 100 (4) |
1,810 (4,000) |
Wire Rope (6 x 37, Fiber Core)
| Diameter mm (inches) |
WLL kg (pounds) |
| 7 (1/4) | 640 (1,400) |
| 8 (5/16) |
950 (2,100) |
| 10 (3/8) | 1,360 (3,000) |
| 11 (7/16) | 1,860 (4,100) |
| 13 (1/2) | 2,400 (5,300) |
| 16 (5/8) | 3,770 (8,300) |
| 20 (3/4) | 4,940 (10,900) |
| 22 (7/8) | 7,300 (16,100) |
| 25 (1) | 9,480 (20,900) |
Manila Rope
| Diameter mm (inches) |
WLL kg (pounds) |
| 10 (3/8) |
90 (205) |
| 11 (7/16) |
120 (265) |
| 13 (1/2) |
150 (315) |
| 16 (5/8) |
210 (465) |
| 20 (3/4) |
290 (640) |
| 25 (1) |
480 (1,050) |
Polypropylene Fiber Rope WLL (3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions)
| Diameter mm (inches) |
WLL kg (pounds) |
| 10 (3/8) |
180 (400) |
| 11 (7/16) |
240 (525) |
| 13 (1/2) |
280 (625) |
| 16 (5/8) |
420 (925) |
| 20 (3/4) |
580 (1,275) |
| 25 (1) |
950 (2,100) |
Polyester Fiber Rope WLL (3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions)
| Diameter mm (inches) |
WLL kg (pounds) |
| 10 (3/8) |
250 (555) |
| 11 (7/16) |
340 (750) |
| 13 (1/2) |
440 (960) |
| 16 (5/8) |
680 (1,500) |
| 20 (3/4) |
850 (1,880) |
| 25 (1) |
1,500 (3,300) |
Nylon Rope
| Diameter mm (inches) |
WLL kg (pounds) |
| 10 (3/8) |
130 (278) |
| 11 (7/16) |
190 (410) |
| 13 (1/2) |
240 (525) |
| 16 (5/8) |
420 (935) |
| 20 (3/4) |
640 (1,420) |
| 25 (1) |
1,140 (2,520) |
Double Braided Nylon Rope
| Diameter mm (inches) |
WLL kg (pounds) |
| 10 (3/8) |
150 (336) |
| 11 (7/16) |
230 (502) |
| 13 (1/2) |
300 (655) |
| 16 (5/8) |
510 (1,130) |
| 20 (3/4) |
830 (1,840) |
| 25 (1) |
1,470 (3,250) |
Steel Strapping
| Width x thickness mm (inches) |
WLL kg (pounds) |
| 31.7 x .74 (11/4 x 0.029) |
540 (1,190) |
| 31.7 x .79 (11/4 x 0.031) |
540 (1,190) |
| 31.7 x .89 (11/4 x 0.035) |
540 (1,190) |
| 31.7 x 1.12 (11/4 x 0.044) |
770 (1,690) |
| 31.7 x 1.27 (11/4 x 0.05) |
770 (1,690) |
| 31.7 x 1.5 (11/4 x 0.057) |
870 (1,925) |
| 50.8 x 1.12 (2 x 0.044) |
1,200 (2,650) |
| 50.8 x 1.27 (2 x 0.05) |
1,200 (2,650) |
§ 393.110 What else do I have to do to determine the minimum
number of tiedowns?
(a) In addition to the requirements of § 393.106, the minimum
number of tiedowns required to secure an article or group of articles
against movement depends on the length of the article(s) being secured,
and the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) When an article is not blocked or positioned to prevent
movement in the forward direction by a headerboard, bulkhead, other
cargo that is positioned to prevent movement, or other appropriate
blocking devices, it must be secured by at least:
(1) One tiedown for articles 5 feet (1.52 meters) or less in
length, and 1,100 pounds (500 kg) or less in weight;
(2) Two tiedowns if the article is:
(i) 5 feet (1.52 meters) or less in length and more than 1,100
pounds (500 kg) in weight; or
(ii) Longer than 5 feet (1.52 meters) but less than or equal to 10
feet (3.04 meters) in length, irrespective of the weight.
(3) Two tiedowns if the article is longer than 10 feet (3.04
meters), and one additional tiedown for every 10 feet (3.04 meters) of
article length, or fraction thereof, beyond the first 10 feet (3.04
meters) of length.
(c) If an individual article is required to be blocked, braced or
immobilized to prevent movement in the forward direction by a
headerboard, bulkhead, other articles which are adequately secured or
by an appropriate blocking or immobilization method, it must be secured
by at least one tiedown for every 3.04 meters (10 feet) or article
length, or fraction thereof.
(d) Special rule for special purpose vehicles. The rules in this
section do not apply to a vehicle transporting one or more articles of
cargo such as, but not limited to, machinery or fabricated structural
items (e.g., steel or concrete beams, crane booms, girders, and
trusses, etc.) which, because of their design, size, shape, or weight,
must be fastened by special methods. However, any article of cargo
carried on that vehicle must be securely and adequately fastened to the
vehicle.
§ 393.112 Must a tiedown be adjustable?
Each tiedown, or its associated connectors, or its attachment
mechanisms must be designed, constructed, and maintained so the driver
of an in-transit commercial motor vehicle can tighten them. However,
this requirement does not apply to the use of steel strapping.
§ 393.114 What are the requirements for front end structures used
as part of a cargo securement system?
(a) Applicability. The rules in this section are applicable to
commercial motor vehicles transporting articles of cargo that are in
contact with the front end structure of the vehicle. The front end
structure on these cargo-carrying vehicles must meet the performance
requirements of this section.
(b) Height and width. (1) The front end structure must extend
either to a height of 4 feet above the floor of the vehicle or to a
height at which it blocks forward movement of any item of article of
cargo being carried on the vehicle, whichever is lower.
(2) The front end structure must have a width which is at least
equal to the width of the vehicle or which blocks forward movement of
any article of cargo being transported on the vehicle, whichever is
narrower.
(c) Strength. The front end structure must be capable of
withstanding the following horizontal forward static load:
(1) For a front end structure less than 6 feet in height, a
horizontal forward static load equal to one-half (0.5) of the weight of
the articles of cargo being transported on the vehicle uniformly
distributed over the entire portion of the front end structure that is
within 4 feet above the vehicle's floor or that is at or below a height
above the vehicle's floor at which it blocks forward movement of any
article of the vehicle's cargo, whichever is less; or
(2) For a front end structure 6 feet in height or higher, a
horizontal forward static load equal to four-tenths (0.4) of the weight
of the articles of cargo being transported on the vehicle uniformly
distributed over the entire front end structure.
(d) Penetration resistance. The front end structure must be
designed, constructed, and maintained so that it is capable of
resisting penetration by any article of cargo that contacts it when the
vehicle decelerates at a rate of 20 feet per second, per second. The
front end structure must have no aperture large enough to permit any
article of cargo in contact with the structure to pass through it.
(e) Substitute devices. The requirements of this section may be met
by the use of devices performing the same functions as a front end
structure, if the devices are at least as strong as, and provide
protection against shifting articles of cargo at least equal to, a
front end structure which conforms to those requirements.
Specific Securement Requirements by Commodity Type
§ 393. 116 What are the rules for securing logs?
(a) Applicability. The rules in this section are applicable to the
transportation of logs with the following exceptions:
(1) Logs that are unitized by banding or other comparable means may
be transported in accordance with the general cargo securement rules of
§ § 393.100 through 393.114.
(2) Loads that consist of no more than four processed logs may be
transported in accordance with the general cargo securement rules of
§ § 393.100 through 393.114.
(3) Firewood, stumps, log debris and other such short logs must be
transported in a vehicle or container enclosed on both sides, front,
and rear and of adequate strength to contain them. Longer logs may also
be so loaded.
(b) Components of a securement system. (1) Logs must be transported
on a vehicle designed and built, or adapted, for the transportation of
logs. Any such vehicle must be fitted with bunks, bolsters, stakes or
standards, or other equivalent means, that cradle the logs and prevent
them from rolling.
(2) All vehicle components involved in securement of logs must be
designed and built to withstand all anticipated operational forces
without failure, accidental release or permanent deformation. Stakes or
standards that are not permanently attached to the vehicle must be
secured in a manner that prevents unintentional separation from the
vehicle in transit.
(3) Tiedowns must be used in combination with the stabilization
provided by bunks, stakes and bolsters to secure the load.
(c) Use of securement system. (1) Logs must be solidly packed, and
the outer bottom logs must be in contact with and resting solidly
against the bunks, bolsters, stakes or standards.
(2) Each outside log on the side of a stack of logs must touch at
least two stakes, bunks, bolsters, or standards. If one end does not
actually touch a stake, it must rest on other logs in a stable manner
and must extend beyond the stake, bunk, bolster or standard.
(3) The center of the highest outside log on each side or end must
be below the top of each stake, bunk or standard.
(4) Each log that is not held in place by contact with other logs
or the stakes, bunks, or standards must be held in place by a tiedown.
Additional tiedowns or securement devices must be used when the
condition of the wood results in such low friction between logs that
they are likely to slip upon each other.
(d) Securement of shortwood logs loaded crosswise on frame, rail
and flatbed vehicles. In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section, each stack of logs loaded crosswise must meet
the following rules:
(1) In no case may the end of a log in the lower tier extend more
than one-third of the log's total length beyond the nearest supporting
structure on the vehicle.
(2) When only one stack of shortwood is loaded crosswise, it must
be secured with at least two tiedowns. The tiedowns must attach to the
vehicle frame at the front and rear of the load, and must cross the
load in this direction.
(3) When two tiedowns are used, they must be positioned at
approximately one-third and two-thirds of the length of the logs.
(4) A vehicle that is more than 10 meters (33 feet) long must be
equipped with center stakes, or comparable devices, to divide it into
sections approximately equal in length. Where a vehicle is so divided,
each tiedown must secure the highest log on each side of the center
stake, and must be fastened below these logs. It may be fixed at each
end and tensioned from the middle, or fixed in the middle and tensioned
from each end, or it may pass through a pulley or equivalent device in
the middle and be tensioned from one end.
(5) Any structure or stake that is subjected to an upward force
when the tiedowns are tensioned must be anchored to resist that force.
(6) If two stacks of shortwood are loaded side-by-side, in addition
to meeting the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this
section, they must be loaded so that:
(i) There is no space between the two stacks of logs;
(ii) The outside of each stack is raised at least 2.5 cm (1 in)
within 10 cm (4 in) of the end of the logs or the side of the vehicle;
(iii) The highest log is no more than 2.44 m (8 ft) above the deck;
and
(iv) At least one tiedown is used lengthwise across each stack of
logs.
(e) Securement of logs loaded lengthwise on flatbed and frame
vehicles. In addition to meeting the requirements of paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section, each stack of shortwood loaded lengthwise on a
frame vehicle or on a flatbed must be secured to the vehicle by at
least two tiedowns.
(f) Securement of logs transported on pole trailers. (1) The load
must be secured by at least one tiedown at each bunk, or alternatively,
by at least two tiedowns used as wrappers that encircle the entire load
at locations along the load that provide effective securement.
(2) The front and rear wrappers must be at least 3.04 meters (10
feet) apart.
(3) Large diameter single and double log loads must be immobilized
with chock blocks or other equivalent means to prevent shifting.
(4) Large diameter logs that rise above bunks must be secured to
the underlying load with at least two additional wrappers.
§ 393.118 What are the rules for securing dressed lumber or
similar building products?
(a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the
transportation of bundles of dressed lumber, packaged lumber, building
products such as plywood, gypsum board or other materials of similar
shape. Lumber or building products which are not bundled or packaged
must be treated as loose items and transported in accordance with
§ § 393.100 through 393.114 of this subpart. For the purpose of
this section, "bundle" refers to packages of lumber, building
materials or similar products which are unitized for securement as a
single article of cargo.
(b) Positioning of bundles. Bundles must be placed side by side in
direct contact with each other, or a means must be provided to prevent
bundles from shifting towards each other.
(c) Securement of bundles transported using no more than one tier.
Bundles carried on one tier must be secured in accordance with the
general provisions of § § 393.100 through 393.114.
(d) Securement of bundles transported using more than one tier.
Bundles carried in more than one tier must be either:
(1) Blocked against lateral movement by stakes on the sides of the
vehicle and secured by tiedowns laid out over the top tier, as outlined
in the general provisions of § § 393.100 through 393.114; or
(2) Restrained from lateral movement by blocking or high friction
devices between tiers and secured by tiedowns laid out over the top
tier, as outlined in the general provisions of § § 393.100
through 393.114; or
(3) Placed directly on top of other bundles or on spacers and
secured in accordance with the following:
(i) The length of spacers between bundles must provide support to
all pieces in the bottom row of the bundle.
(ii) The width of individual spacers must be equal to or greater
than the height.
(iii) If spacers are comprised of layers of material, the layers
must be unitized or fastened together in a manner which ensures that
the spacer performs as a single piece of material.
(iv) The arrangement of the tiedowns for the bundles must be:
(A) Secured by tiedowns over the top tier of bundles, in accordance
with the general provisions of § § 393.100 through 393.114 with
a minimum of two tiedowns for bundles longer than 1.52 meters (5 ft);
and
(B) Secured by tiedowns in accordance with the general provisions
of § § 393.100 through 393.114 over the second tier or over a
middle tier of a maximum height of 1.85 meters (6 ft) above the trailer
deck, whichever is greater, for each stack of bundles composed of more
than two tiers; or
(4) Secured by tiedowns over each tier of bundles, in accordance
with § § 393.100 through 393.114 using a minimum of two tiedowns
over each of the top bundles longer than 1.52 meters (5 ft), in all
circumstances.
§ 393.120 What are the rules for securing metal coils?
(a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the
transportation of one or more metal coils which, individually or
grouped together, weigh 2268 kg (5000 pounds) or more. Shipments of
metal coils that weigh less than 2268 kg (5000 pounds) may be secured
in accordance with the provisions of § § 393.100 through
393.114.
(b) Securement of coils transported with eyes vertical on a flatbed
vehicle, in a sided vehicle or intermodal container with anchor
points--(1) An individual coil. Each coil must be secured by tiedowns
arranged in a manner to prevent the coils from tipping in the forward,
rearward, and lateral directions. The restraint system must include the
following:
(i) At least one tiedown attached diagonally from the left side of
the vehicle or intermodal container (near the forwardmost part of the
coil), across the eye of the coil, to the right side of the vehicle or
intermodal container (near the rearmost part of the coil);
(ii) At least one tiedown attached diagonally from the right side
of the vehicle or intermodal container (near the forwardmost part of
the coil), across the eye of the coil, to the left side of the vehicle
or intermodal container (near the rearmost part of the coil);
(iii) At least one tiedown attached transversely over the eye of
the coil; and
(iv) Either blocking and bracing, friction mats or tiedowns must be
used to prevent longitudinal movement in the forward direction.
(2) Coils grouped in rows. When coils are grouped and loaded side
by side in a transverse or longitudinal row, the each row of coils must
be secured by the following:
(i) At least one tiedown attached to the front of the row of coils,
restraining against forward motion, and whenever practicable, making an
angle no more than 45 degrees with the floor of the vehicle or
intermodal container when viewed from the side of the vehicle or
container;
(ii) At least one tiedown attached to the rear of the row of coils,
restraining against rearward motion, and whenever practicable, making
an angle no more than 45 degrees with the floor of the vehicle or
intermodal container when viewed from the side of the vehicle or
container;
(iii) At least one tiedown over the top of each coil or transverse
row of coils, restraining against vertical motion. Tiedowns going over
the top of a coil(s) must be as close as practicable to the eye of the
coil and positioned to prevent the tiedown from slipping or becoming
unintentionally unfastened while the vehicle is in transit; and
(iv) Tiedowns must be arranged to prevent shifting or tipping in
the forward, rearward and lateral directions.
(c) Securement of coils transported with eyes crosswise on a
flatbed vehicle, in a sided vehicle or intermodal container with anchor
points--(1) An individual coil. Each coil must be secured by the
following:
(i) A means (e.g., timbers, chocks or wedges, a cradle, etc.) to
prevent the coil from rolling. The means of preventing rolling must
support the coil off the deck, and must not be capable of becoming
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit. If
timbers, chocks or wedges are used, they must be held in place by coil
bunks or similar devices to prevent them from coming loose. The use of
nailed blocking or cleats as the sole means to secure timbers, chocks
or wedges, or a nailed wood cradle, is prohibited;
(ii) At least one tiedown through its eye, restricting against
forward motion, and whenever practicable, making an angle no more than
45 degrees with the floor of the vehicle or intermodal container when
viewed from the side of the vehicle or container; and
(iii) At least one tiedown through its eye, restricting against
rearward motion, and whenever practicable, making an angle no more than
45 degrees with the floor of the vehicle or intermodal container when
viewed from the side of the vehicle or container.
(2) Prohibition on crossing of tiedowns when coils are transported
with eyes crosswise. Attaching tiedowns diagonally through the eye of a
coil to form an X-pattern when viewed from above the vehicle is
prohibited.
(d) Securement of coils transported with eyes lengthwise on a
flatbed vehicle, in a sided vehicle or intermodal container with anchor
points--(1) An individual coil-option 1. Each coil must be secured by:
(i) A means (e.g., timbers, chocks or wedges, a cradle, etc.) to
prevent the coil from rolling. The means of preventing rolling must
support the coil off the deck, and must not be capable of becoming
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit. If
timbers, chocks or wedges are used, they must be held in place by coil
bunks or similar devices to prevent them from coming loose. The use of
nailed blocking or cleats as the sole means to secure timbers, chocks
or wedges, or a nailed wood cradle, is prohibited;
(ii) At least one tiedown attached diagonally through its eye from
the left side of the vehicle or intermodal container (near the forward-
most part of the coil), to the right side of the vehicle or intermodal
container (near the rearmost part of the coil), making an angle no more
than 45 degrees, whenever practicable, with the floor of the vehicle or
intermodal container when viewed from the side of the vehicle or
container;
(iii) At least one tiedown attached diagonally through its eye,
from the right side of the vehicle or intermodal container (near the
forward-most part of the coil), to the left side of the vehicle or
intermodal container (near the rearmost part of the coil), making an
angle no more than 45 degrees, whenever practicable, with the floor of
the vehicle or intermodal container when viewed from the side of the
vehicle or container;
(iv) At least one tiedown attached transversely over the top of the
coil; and
(v) Either blocking, or friction mats to prevent longitudinal
movement.
(2) An individual coil--option 2. Each coil must be secured by:
(i) A means (e.g., timbers, chocks or wedges, a cradle, etc.) to
prevent the coil from rolling. The means of preventing rolling must
support the coil off the deck, and must not be capable of becoming
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit. If
timbers, chocks or wedges are used, they must be held in place by coil
bunks or similar devices to prevent them from coming loose. The use of
nailed blocking or cleats as the sole means to secure timbers, chocks
or wedges, or a nailed wood cradle, is prohibited;
(ii) At least one tiedown attached straight through its eye from
the left side of the vehicle or intermodal container (near the forward-
most part of the coil), to the left side of the vehicle or intermodal
container (near the rearmost part of the coil), and, whenever
practicable, making an angle no more than 45 degrees with the floor of
the vehicle or intermodal container when viewed from the side of the
vehicle or container;
(iii) At least one tiedown attached straight through its eye, from
the right side of the vehicle or intermodal container (near the
forward-most part of the coil), to the right side of the vehicle or
intermodal container (near the rearmost part of the coil), and whenever
practicable, making an angle no more than 45 degrees with the floor of
the vehicle or intermodal container when viewed from the side of the
vehicle or container;
(iv) At least one tiedown attached transversely over the top of the
coil; and
(v) Either blocking or friction mats to prevent longitudinal
movement.
(3) An individual coil--option 3. Each coil must be secured by:
(i) A means (e.g., timbers, chocks or wedges, a cradle, etc.) to
prevent the coil from rolling. The means of preventing rolling must
support the coil off the deck, and must not be capable of becoming
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit. If
timbers, chocks or wedges are used, they must be held in place by coil
bunks or similar devices to prevent them from coming loose. The use of
nailed blocking or cleats as the sole means to secure timbers, chocks
or wedges, or a nailed wood cradle, is prohibited;
(ii) At least one tiedown over the top of the coil, located near
the forward-most part of the coil;
(iii) At least one tiedown over the top of the coil located near
the rearmost part of the coil; and
(iv) Either blocking or friction mats to prevent longitudinal
movement.he forward direction.
(4) Rows of coils. Each transverse row of coils having
approximately equal outside diameters must be secured with:
(i) A means (e.g., timbers, chocks or wedges, a cradle, etc.) to
prevent each coil in the row of coils from rolling. The means of
preventing rolling must support each coil off the deck, and must not be
capable of becoming unintentionally unfastened or loose while the
vehicle is in transit. If timbers, chocks or wedges are used, they must
be held in place by coil bunks or similar devices to prevent them from
coming loose. The use of nailed blocking or cleats as the sole means to
secure timbers, chocks or wedges, or a nailed wood cradle, is
prohibited;
(ii) At least one tiedown over the top of each coil or transverse
row, located near the forward-most part of the coil;
(iii) At least one tiedown over the top of each coil or transverse
row, located near the rearmost part of the coil; and
(iv) Either blocking, bracing or friction mats to prevent
longitudinal movement.
(e) Securement of coils transported in a sided vehicle without
anchor points or an intermodal container without anchor points. Metal
coils transported in a vehicle with sides without anchor points or an
intermodal container without anchor points must be loaded in a manner
to prevent shifting and tipping. The coils may also be secured using a
system of blocking and bracing, friction mats, tiedowns, or a
combination of these to prevent any horizontal movement and tipping.
§ 393.122 What are the rules for securing paper rolls?
(a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to shipments of
paper rolls which, individually or together, weigh 2268 kg (5000 lb) or
more. Shipments of paper rolls that weigh less than 2268 kg (5000 lb),
and paper rolls that are unitized on a pallet, may either be secured in
accordance with the rules in this section or the requirements of
§ § 393.100 through 393.114.
(b) Securement of paper rolls transported with eyes vertical in a
sided vehicle. (1) Paper rolls must be placed tightly against the walls
of the vehicle, other paper rolls, or other cargo, to prevent movement
during transit.
(2) If there are not enough paper rolls in the shipment to reach
the walls of the vehicle, lateral movement must be prevented by filling
the void, blocking, bracing, tiedowns or friction mats. The paper rolls
may also be banded together.
(3) When any void behind a group of paper rolls, including that at
the rear of the vehicle, exceeds the diameter of the paper rolls,
rearward movement must be prevented by friction mats, blocking,
bracing, tiedowns, or banding to other rolls.
(4)(i) If a paper roll is not prevented from tipping or falling
sideways or rearwards by vehicle structure or other cargo, and its
width is more than 2 times its diameter, it must be prevented from
tipping or falling by banding it to other rolls, bracing, or tiedowns.
(ii) If the forwardmost roll(s) in a group of paper rolls is not
prevented from tipping or falling forwards by vehicle structure or
other cargo and it is restrained against forward movement by friction
mat(s) alone, and its width is more than 1.75 times its diameter, it
must be prevented from tipping or falling forwards by banding it to
other rolls, bracing, or tiedowns.
(iii) Otherwise, when a paper roll or the forwardmost roll in
groups of rolls that are not prevented from tipping or falling forwards
by vehicle structure or other cargo and its width exceeds 1.25 times
its diameter it must be prevented from tipping or falling by banding it
to other rolls, bracing or tiedowns.
(5) If paper rolls are banded together, the rolls must be placed
tightly against each other to form a stable group. The bands must be
applied tightly, and must be secured so that they cannot fall off the
rolls or to the deck.
(6) A friction mat used to provide the principal securement for a
paper roll must protrude from beneath the roll in the direction in
which it is providing that securement.
(c) Securement of split loads of paper rolls transported with eyes
vertical in a sided vehicle. (1) If a paper roll in a split load is not
prevented from forward movement by vehicle structure or other cargo, it
must be prevented from forward movement by filling the open space, or
by blocking, bracing, tiedowns, friction mats, or some combination of
these.
(2) A friction mat used to provide the principal securement for a
paper roll must protrude from beneath the roll in the direction in
which it is providing that securement.
(d) Securement of stacked loads of paper rolls transported with
eyes vertical in a sided vehicle. (1) Paper rolls must not be loaded on
a layer of paper rolls beneath unless the lower layer extends to the
front of the vehicle.
(2) Paper rolls in the second and subsequent layers must be
prevented from forward, rearward or lateral movement by means as
allowed for the bottom layer, or by use of a blocking roll from a lower
layer.
(3) The blocking roll must be at least 38 mm (1.5 in) taller than
other rolls, or must be raised at least 38 mm (1.5 in) using dunnage.
(4) A roll in the rearmost row of any layer must not be raised
using dunnage.
(e) Securement of paper rolls transported with eyes crosswise in a
sided vehicle. (1) The paper rolls must be prevented from rolling or
shifting longitudinally by contact with vehicle structure or other
cargo, by chocks, wedges or blocking and bracing of adequate size, or
by tiedowns.
(2) Chocks, wedges or blocking must be held securely in place by
some means in addition to friction, so they cannot become
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit.
(3) The rearmost roll must not be secured using the rear doors of
the vehicle or intermodal container, or by blocking held in place by
those doors.
(4) If there is more than a total of 203 mm (8 in) of space between
the ends of a paper roll, or a row of rolls, and the walls of the
vehicle, void fillers, blocking, bracing, friction mats, or tiedowns
must be used to prevent the roll from shifting towards either wall.
(f) Securement of stacked loads of paper rolls transported with
eyes crosswise in a sided vehicle. (1) Rolls must not be loaded in a
second layer unless the bottom layer extends to the front of the
vehicle.
(2) Rolls must not be loaded in a third or higher layer unless all
wells in the layer beneath are filled.
(3) The foremost roll in each upper layer, or any roll with an
empty well in front of it, must be secured against forward movement by:
(i) Banding it to other rolls, or
(ii) Blocking against an adequately secured eye-vertical blocking
roll resting on the floor of the vehicle which is at least 1.5 times
taller than the diameter of the roll being blocked, or
(iii) Placing it in a well formed by two rolls on the lower row
whose diameter is equal to or greater than that of the roll on the
upper row.
(4) The rearmost roll in each upper layer must be secured by
banding it to other rolls if it is located in either of the last two
wells formed by the rearmost rolls in the layer below.
(5) Rolls must be secured against lateral movement by the same
means allowed for the bottom layer when there is more than a total of
203 mm (8 in) of space between the ends of a paper roll, or a row of
rolls, and the walls of the vehicle.
(g) Securement of paper rolls transported with the eyes lengthwise
in a sided vehicle.
(1) Each roll must be prevented from forward movement by contact
with vehicle structure, other cargo, blocking or tiedowns.
(2) Each roll must be prevented from rearward movement by contact
with other cargo, blocking, friction mats or tiedowns.
(3) The paper rolls must be prevented from rolling or shifting
laterally by contact with the wall of the vehicle or other cargo, or by
chocks, wedges or blocking of adequate size.
(4) Chocks, wedges or blocking must be held securely in place by
some means in addition to friction, so they cannot become
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit.
(h) Securement of stacked loads of paper rolls transported with the
eyes lengthwise in a sided vehicle. (1) Rolls must not be loaded in a
higher layer if another roll will fit in the layer beneath.
(2) An upper layer must be formed by placing paper rolls in the
wells formed by the rolls beneath.
(3) A roll in an upper layer must be secured against forward and
rearward movement by any of the means allowed for the bottom layer, by
use of a blocking roll, or by banding to other rolls.
(i) Securement of paper rolls transported on a flatbed vehicle or
in a curtain-sided vehicle--(1) Paper rolls with eyes vertical or with
eyes lengthwise.
(i) The paper rolls must be loaded and secured as described for a
sided vehicle, and the entire load must be secured by tiedowns in
accordance with the requirements of § § 393.100 through 393.114.
(ii) Stacked loads of paper rolls with eyes vertical are
prohibited.
(2) Paper rolls with eyes crosswise. (i) The paper rolls must be
prevented from rolling or shifting longitudinally by contact with
vehicle structure or other cargo, by chocks, wedges or blocking and
bracing of adequate size, or by tiedowns.
(ii) Chocks, wedges or blocking must be held securely in place by
some means in addition to friction so that they cannot become
unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit.
(iii) Tiedowns must be used in accordance with the requirements of
§ § 393.100 through 393.114 to prevent lateral movement.
§ 393.124 What are the rules for securing concrete pipe?
(a) Applicability. (1) The rules in this section apply to the
transportation of concrete pipe on flatbed trailers and vehicles, and
lowboy trailers.
(2) Concrete pipe bundled tightly together into a single rigid
article that has no tendency to roll, and concrete
pipe loaded in a sided vehicle or container must be secured in
accordance with the provisions of § § § 393.100 through
393.114.
(b) General specifications for tiedowns. (1) The aggregate working
load limit of all tiedowns on any group of pipes must not be less than
half the total weight of all the pipes in the group.
(2) A transverse tiedown through a pipe on an upper tier or over
longitudinal tiedowns is considered to secure all those pipes beneath
on which that tiedown causes pressure.
(c) Blocking. (1) Blocking may be one or more pieces placed
symmetrically about the center of a pipe.
(2) One piece must extend at least half the distance from the
center to each end of the pipe, and two pieces must be placed on the
opposite side, one at each end of the pipe.
(3) Blocking must be placed firmly against the pipe, and must be
secured to prevent it moving out from under the pipe.
(4) Timber blocking must have minimum dimensions of at least 10 x
15 cm (4 x 6 in).
(d) Arranging the load--(1) Pipe of different diameter. If pipe of
more than one diameter are loaded on a vehicle, groups must be formed
that consist of pipe of only one size, and each group must be
separately secured.
(2) Arranging a bottom tier. The bottom tier must be arranged to
cover the full length of the vehicle, or as a partial tier in one group
or two groups.
(3) Arranging an upper tier. Pipe must be placed only in the wells
formed by adjacent pipes in the tier beneath. A third or higher tier
must not be started unless all wells in the tier beneath are filled.
(4) Arranging the top tier. The top tier must be arranged as a
complete tier, a partial tier in one group, or a partial tier in two
groups.
(5) Arranging bell pipe. (i) Bell pipe must be loaded on at least
two longitudinal spacers of sufficient height to ensure that the bell
is clear of the deck.
(ii) Bell pipe loaded in one tier must have the bells alternating
on opposite sides of the vehicle.
(iii) The ends of consecutive pipe must be staggered, if possible,
within the allowable width, otherwise they must be aligned.
(iv) Bell pipe loaded in more than one tier must have the bells of
the bottom tier all on the same side of the vehicle.
(v) Pipe in every upper tier must be loaded with bells on the
opposite side of the vehicle to the bells of the tier below.
(vi) If the second tier is not complete, pipe in the bottom tier
which do not support a pipe above must have their bells alternating on
opposite sides of the vehicle.
(a) Securing pipe with an inside diameter up to 1,143 mm (45 in).
In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this
section, the following rules must be satisfied:
(1) Stabilizing the bottom tier. (i) The bottom tier must be
immobilized longitudinally at each end by blocking, vehicle end
structure, stakes, a locked pipe unloader, or other equivalent means.
(ii) Other pipe in the bottom tier may also be held in place by
blocks and/or wedges; and
(iii) Every pipe in the bottom tier must also be held firmly in
contact with the adjacent pipe by tiedowns though the front and rear
pipes:
(A) At least one tiedown through the front pipe of the bottom tier
must run aft at an angle not more than 45 degrees with the horizontal,
whenever practicable.
(B) At least one tiedown through the rear pipe of the bottom tier
must run forward at an angle not more than 45 degrees with the
horizontal, whenever practicable.
(2) Use of tiedowns. (i) Each pipe may be secured individually with
tiedowns through the pipe.
(ii) If each pipe is not secured individually with a tiedown, then:
(A) Either one 1/2-inch diameter chain or wire rope, or two 3/8-
inch diameter chain or wire rope, must be placed longitudinally over
the group of pipes;
(B) One transverse tiedown must be used for every 3.04 m (10 ft) of
load length. The transverse tiedowns may be placed through a pipe, or
over both longitudinal tiedowns between two pipes on the top tier.
(C) If the first pipe of a group in the top tier is not placed in
the first well formed by pipes at the front of the tier beneath, it
must be secured by an additional tiedown that runs rearward at an angle
not more than 45 degrees to the horizontal, whenever practicable. This
tiedown must pass either through the front pipe of the upper tier, or
outside it and over both longitudinal tiedowns; and
(D) If the last pipe of a group in the top tier is not placed in
the last well formed by pipes at the rear of the tier beneath, it must
be secured by an additional tiedown that runs forward at an angle not
more than 45 degrees to the horizontal, whenever practicable. This
tiedown must pass either through the rear pipe of the upper tier or
outside it and over both longitudinal tiedowns.
(f) Securing large pipe, with an inside diameter over 1143 mm (45
in). In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of
this section, the following rules must be satisfied:
(1) The front pipe and the rear pipe must be immobilized by
blocking, wedges, vehicle end structure, stakes, locked pipe unloader,
or other equivalent means.
(2) Each pipe must be secured by tiedowns through the pipe:
(i) At least one tiedown through each pipe in the front half of the
load, which includes the middle one if there is an odd number, and must
run rearward at an angle not more than 45 degrees with the horizontal,
whenever practicable.
(ii) At least one tiedown through each pipe in the rear half of the
load, and must run forward at an angle not more than 45 degrees with
the horizontal, whenever practicable, to hold each pipe firmly in
contact with adjacent pipe; and
(iii) If the front or rear pipe is not also in contact with vehicle
end structure, stakes, a locked pipe unloader, or other equivalent
means, at least two tiedowns positioned as described in paragraphs
(f)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, must be used through that pipe.
(3) If only one pipe is transported, or if several pipes are
transported without contact between other pipes, the requirements in
this paragraph apply to each pipe as a single front and rear article.
§ 393.126 What are the rules for securing intermodal containers?
(a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the
transportation of intermodal containers. Cargo contained within an
intermodal container must be secured in accordance with the provisions
of § § 393.100 through 393.114 or, if applicable, the commodity
specific rules of this part.
(b) Securement of intermodal containers transported on container
chassis vehicle(s). (1) Each intermodal container must be secured to
the container chassis with securement devices or integral locking
devices that cannot unintentionally become unfastened while the vehicle
is in transit.
(2) The securement devices must restrain the container from moving
more than 1.27 cm (1/2 in) forward, more than 1.27 cm (1/2 in) aft,
more than 1.27 cm (1/2 in) to the right, more than 1.27 cm (1/2 in) to
the left, or more than 2.54 cm (1 in) vertically.
(3) The front and rear of the container must be secured
independently.
(c) Securement of loaded intermodal containers transported on
vehicles other than container chassis vehicle(s). (1) All lower corners
of the intermodal container must rest upon the vehicle, or the corners
must be supported by a structure capable of bearing the weight of the
container and that support structure must be independently secured to
the motor vehicle.
(2) Each container must be secured to the vehicle by:
(i) Chains, wire ropes or integral devices which are fixed to all
lower corners; or
(ii) Crossed chains which are fixed to all upper corners; and,
(3) The front and rear of the container must be secured
independently. Each chain, wire rope, or integral locking device must
be attached to the container in a manner that prevents it from being
unintentionally unfastened while the vehicle is in transit.
(d) Securement of empty intermodal containers transported on
vehicles other than container chassis vehicle(s). Empty intermodal
containers transported on vehicles other than container chassis
vehicles do not have to have all lower corners of the intermodal
container resting upon the vehicle, or have all lower corners supported
by a structure capable of bearing the weight of the empty container,
provided:
(1) The empty intermodal container is balanced and positioned on
the vehicle in a manner such that the container is stable before the
addition of tiedowns or other securement equipment; and,
(2) The amount of overhang for the empty container on the trailer
does not exceed five feet on either the front or rear of the trailer;
(3) The empty intermodal container must not interfere with the
vehicle's maneuverability; and,
(4) The empty intermodal container is secured to prevent lateral,
longitudinal, or vertical shifting.
§ 393.128 What are the rules for securing automobiles, light
trucks and vans?
(a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the
transportation of automobiles, light trucks, and vans which
individually weigh 4,536 kg. (10,000 lb) or less. Vehicles which
individually are heavier than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) must be secured in
accordance with the provisions of § 393.130 of this part.
(b) Securement of automobiles, light trucks, and vans.
(1) Automobiles, light trucks, and vans must be restrained at both
the front and rear to prevent lateral, forward, rearward, and vertical
movement using a minimum of two tiedowns.
(2) Tiedowns that are designed to be affixed to the structure of
the automobile, light truck, or van must use the mounting points on
those vehicles that have been specifically designed for that purpose.
(3) Tiedowns that are designed to fit over or around the wheels of
an automobile, light truck, or van must provide restraint in the
lateral, longitudinal and vertical directions.
(4) Edge protectors are not required for synthetic webbing at
points where the webbing comes in contact with the tires.
§ 393.130 What are the rules for securing heavy vehicles,
equipment and machinery?
(a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the
transportation of heavy vehicles, equipment and machinery which operate
on wheels or tracks, such as front end loaders, bulldozers, tractors,
and power shovels and which individually weigh 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.) or
more. Vehicles, equipment and machinery which is lighter than 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb.) may also be secured in accordance with the provisions of
this section, with § 393.128, or in accordance with the provisions
of § § 393.100 through 393.114.
(b) Preparation of equipment being transported. (1) Accessory
equipment, such as hydraulic shovels, must be completely lowered and
secured to the vehicle.
(2) Articulated vehicles shall be restrained in a manner that
prevents articulation while in transit.
(c) Securement of heavy vehicles, equipment or machinery with
crawler tracks or wheels. (1) In addition to the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section, heavy equipment or machinery with
crawler tracks or wheels must be restrained against movement in the
lateral, forward, rearward, and vertical direction using a minimum of
four tiedowns.
(2) Each of the tiedowns must be affixed as close as practicable to
the front and rear of the vehicle, or mounting points on the vehicle
that have been specifically designed for that purpose.
§ 393.132 What are the rules for securing flattened or crushed
vehicles?
(a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the
transportation of vehicles such as automobiles, light trucks, and vans
that have been flattened or crushed.
(b) Prohibition on the use of synthetic webbing. The use of
synthetic webbing to secure flattened or crushed vehicles is
prohibited.
(c) Securement of flattened or crushed vehicles. Flattened or
crushed vehicles must be transported on vehicles which have:
(1) Containment walls or comparable means on four sides which
extend to the full height of the load and which block against movement
of the cargo in the forward, rearward and lateral directions; or
(2)(i) Containment walls or comparable means on three sides which
extend to the full height of the load and which block against movement
of the cargo in the forward, rearward and the lateral direction for
which there is no containment wall or comparable means, and
(ii) A minimum of two tiedowns are required per vehicle stack; or
(3)(i) Containment walls on two sides which extend to the full
height of the load and which block against movement of the cargo in the
forward and rearward directions, and
(ii) A minimum of three tiedowns are required per vehicle stack; or
(4) A minimum of four tiedowns per vehicle stack.
(5) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and
(4), the following rules must be satisfied:
(i) Vehicles used to transport flattened or crushed vehicles must
be equipped with a means to prevent loose parts from falling from all
four sides of the vehicle which extends to the full height of the
cargo.
(ii) The means used to contain loose parts may consist of
structural walls, sides or sideboards, or suitable covering material,
alone or in combinations.
(iii) The use of synthetic material for containment of loose parts
is permitted.
§ 393.134 What are the rules for securing roll-on/roll-off or hook
lift containers?
(a) Applicability. The rules in this section apply to the
transportation of roll-on/roll-off or hook lift containers.
(b) Securement of a roll-on/roll-off and hook lift container. Each
roll-on/roll-off and hook lift container carried on a vehicle which is
not equipped with an integral securement system must be:
(1) Blocked against forward movement by the lifting device, stops,
a combination of both or other suitable restraint mechanism;
(2) Secured to the front of the vehicle by the lifting device or
other suitable restraint against lateral and vertical movement;
(3) Secured to the rear of the vehicle with at least one of the
following mechanisms:
[[Page 61235]]
(i) One tiedown attached to both the vehicle chassis and the
container chassis;
(ii) Two tiedowns installed lengthwise, each securing one side of
the container to one of the vehicle's side rails; or
(iii) Two hooks, or an equivalent mechanism, securing both sides of
the container to the vehicle chassis at least as effectively as the
tiedowns in the two previous items.
(4) The mechanisms used to secure the rear end of a roll-on/roll
off or hook lift container must be installed no more than two meters (6
ft 7 in) from the rear of the container.
(5) In the event that one or more of the front stops or lifting
devices are missing, damaged or not compatible, additional manually
installed tiedowns must be used to secure the container to the vehicle,
providing the same level of securement as the missing, damaged or
incompatible components.
§ 393.136 What are the rules for securing large boulders?
(a) Applicability. (1) The rules in this section are applicable to
the transportation of any large piece of natural, irregularly shaped
rock weighing in excess of 5,000 kg (11,000 lb.) or with a volume in
excess of 2 cubic-meters on an open vehicle, or in a vehicle whose
sides are not designed and rated to contain such cargo.
(2) Pieces of rock weighing more than 100 kg (220 lb.), but less
than 5,000 kg (11,000 lb.) must be secured, either in accordance with
this section, or in accordance with the provisions of § §
393.100 through 393.114, including:
(i) Rock contained within a vehicle which is designed to carry such
cargo; or
(ii) Secured individually by tiedowns, provided each piece can be
stabilized and adequately secured.
(3) Rock which has been formed or cut to a shape and which provides
a stable base for securement must also be secured, either in accordance
with the provisions of this section, or in accordance with the
provisions of § § 393.100 through 393.114.
(b) General requirements for the positioning of boulders on the
vehicle. (1) Each boulder must be placed with its flattest and/or
largest side down.
(2) Each boulder must be supported on at least two pieces of hard
wood blocking at least 10 cm x 10 cm (4 inches x 4 inches) side
dimensions extending the full width of the boulder.
(3) Hardwood blocking pieces must be placed as symmetrically as
possible under the boulder and should support at least three-fourths of
the length of the boulder.
(4) If the flattest side of a boulder is rounded or partially
rounded, so that the boulder may roll, it must be placed in a crib made
of hardwood timber fixed to the deck of the vehicle so that the boulder
rests on both the deck and the timber, with at least three well-
separated points of contact that prevent its tendency to roll in any
direction.
(5) If a boulder is tapered, the narrowest end must point towards
the front of the vehicle.
(c) General tiedown requirements. (1) Only chain may be used as
tiedowns to secure large boulders.
(2) Tiedowns which are in direct contact with the boulder should,
where possible, be located in valleys or notches across the top of the
boulder, and must be arranged to prevent sliding across the rock
surface.
(d) Securement of a cubic shaped boulder. In addition to the
requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the following
rules must be satisfied:
(1) Each boulder must be secured individually with at least two
chain tiedowns placed transversely across the vehicle.
(2) The aggregate working load limit of the tiedowns must be at
least half the weight of the boulder.
(3) The tiedowns must be placed as closely as possible to the wood
blocking used to support the boulder.
(e) Securement of a non-cubic shaped boulder--with a stable base.
In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, the following rules must be satisfied:
(1) The boulder must be secured individually with at least two
chain tiedowns forming an "X" pattern over the boulder.
(2) The aggregate working load limit of the tiedowns must be at
least half the weight of the boulder.
(3) The tiedowns must pass over the center of the boulder and must
be attached to each other at the intersection by a shackle or other
connecting device.
(f) Securement of a non-cubic shaped boulder--with an unstable
base. In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, each boulder must be secured by a combination of chain
tiedowns as follows:
(1) One chain must surround the top of the boulder (at a point
between one-half and two-thirds of its height). The working load limit
of the chain must be at least half the weight of the boulder.
(2) Four chains must be attached to the surrounding chain and the
vehicle to form a blocking mechanism which prevents any horizontal
movement. Each chain must have a working load limit of at least one-
fourth the weight of the boulder. Whenever practicable, the angle of
the chains must not exceed 45 degrees from the horizontal.
Issued on: September 8, 2002.
Joseph M. Clapp,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-23693 Filed 9-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
 |
|
|
Print