[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16069]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 6, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 393
[FHWA Docket No. MC-93-21]
RIN 2125-AD18
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Protection
Against Shifting or Falling Cargo
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending the cargo securement requirements of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to adopt the use of
working load limits in specifying the minimum strength of cargo
securement devices. The amendment requires that the aggregate working
load limit of the tiedown assemblies used to secure an article against
movement in any direction be at least
\1/2\ times the weight of the article secured. In addition, a table of
working load limits is being included in the FMCSRs to provide motor
carriers with a means of determining the number of tiedown assemblies
required. It is the intent of this final rule to make the tiedown
requirements easier to understand, use, and enforce. This action is in
response to a petition from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA).
DATES: Effective August 5, 1994. The incorporation by reference of the
publications listed in Sec. 393.102(b) of this final rule is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 5, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Motor
Carrier Standards, HCS-10, (202) 366-2981; or Mr. Charles E. Medalen,
Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-20, (202) 366-1354, Federal Highway
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D. C. 20590.
Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except legal Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 29, 1990, the CVSA petitioned the FHWA to change the
criterion for cargo tiedown assemblies from ``static breaking
strength'' to ``working load limit.'' The CVSA contends the static
breaking strength of a tiedown assembly is a rating that incorporates
no safety factor, though the rule itself does include such a factor.
The CVSA also believes the use of working load limits will make the
tiedown regulations easier to understand, use, and enforce. The
petitioner asserts that working load limit is the strength criterion
commonly used by the chain, cordage, wire rope, and web sling
industries and that the term is widely known in the trucking industry.
The use of the working load limits would thus promote direct
correlation between the rule and the capabilities labeled on or
indicated by load securement equipment.
The CVSA proposed that the first sentence of Sec. 393.102(b) be
amended to read ``Except for integral securement devices * * * the
aggregate working load limit of the tiedown assemblies used to secure
an article against movement in any direction must be at least \1/2\
times the weight of that article.'' The CVSA also proposed that chain,
webbing, wire rope, and cordage meet certain manufacturing
specifications or standards.
On September 17, 1993, the FHWA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (58 FR 48624) to adopt the use of working load limits
and the incorporation by reference of chain, webbing, wire rope, and
cordage manufacturing standards. Although the CVSA petition did not
discuss standards for steel strapping, the FHWA proposed that Federal
Specification No. A-A-880, Strapping, Steel Flat and Seals (May 13,
1980), be incorporated by reference because Sec. 393.102 had referenced
Federal Specification No. QQ-S-781 which has been cancelled. The FHWA
believed it was necessary to retain specific requirements for steel
strapping and that Federal Specification No. A-A-880 was an appropriate
replacement.
The FHWA also proposed to create a new section, Sec. 393.7, Matter
incorporated by reference, to provide the language of incorporation
required by 1 CFR 51, as well as to include information on the
availability of documents incorporated by reference.
Discussion of Comments
The FHWA received 23 comments to the NPRM. Several commenters
provided more than one docket submission. The commenters were:
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates); American Trucking
Associations, Inc. (ATA); Department of California Highway Patrol
(CHP); Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA); Connecticut
Department of Motor Vehicles (Connecticut); Cooper Tools; The Cordage
Institute; The Crosby Group, Inc.; Great American Lines, Inc.; Illinois
Department of Transportation (Illinois); Kinedyne Corporation; Maine
State Police (Maine); The National Industrial Transportation League;
New York Department of Transportation (New York); Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA); United States
Representative Jack Quinn, 30th District, New York; Steel Service
Center Institute; Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA); and
Mrs. Richard B. Wilson.
Use of Working Load Limits
The commenters were generally in favor of amending Sec. 393.102(b)
to incorporate the use of working load limits. The CHP and Great
American Lines were both opposed to the use of working load limits.
The CHP stated:
[Static breaking strength (SBS)] is a readily determined physical
parameter. Conversely, the WLL, according to the NPRM is generally
between \1/4\ and \1/3\ of the static breaking strength of the tiedown.
The CHP is not aware of any regulation which defines WLL. Instead, each
manufacturer makes this determination for its own products. In many
cases this may be based on industry standard practice, but since these
practices are voluntary, no means is available to assure conformance.
In effect, the FHWA is abdicating its responsibility to determine
proper tiedown standards by allowing manufacturers to determine the WLL
of their devices. It is the opinion of the CHP that this parameter is
far too critical to leave to a manufacturer's discretion.
Unless the WLL for each type of binder is defined in the
regulation, there will always be some ambiguity as to the strength of
the device.
Further, from an enforcement perspective, the WLL method could
result in a hardship since WLL, based only on a factor determined by
each manufacturer, is a much harder concept for enforcement/prosecution
personnel to explain in court as opposed to the SBS, a parameter which
is nearly intuitively obvious. Variations from manufacturer to
manufacturer will further complicate the issue.
Great American Lines, Inc., stated:
[T]he current regulations as written in [Sec. ]393.102 [of the]
FMCS[Rs] are more than sufficient. Properly trained drivers using the
securement as specified in the current regulations will have no problem
keeping the cargo on the trailer. Education is the key, not change. The
changes as proposed can only confuse the drivers, carriers and
enforcement officers and cause an extremely dangerous situation * * *.
Changing to the C.V.S.A. guidelines can serve no good purpose and
will confuse the people that it is meant to regulate. In the end the
public will suffer. Don't change something that is working when
properly applied.
In its second docket submission, Great American Lines, Inc., stated
that ``Neither the reasons presented in the text of the proposal nor at
the congressional hearings preceding this notice of proposed rulemaking
establish a problem with the regulation that warrant the changes being
proposed.''
The TTMA's position on the issue was contingent upon the FHWA's
clarification of the term ``tiedown assemblies.'' The TTMA stated: ``If
the term `tiedown assemblies,' as used in [Sec. ]393.102(b) includes
trailer anchor points, then we object to changing `breaking strength'
to `working load limit.'''
It is true, as the CHP noted, that working load limits are based on
each manufacturer's determination. That is also true for static
breaking strength, however, and neither value can be tested during
roadside enforcement. The FHWA notes that the terms ``static breaking
strength'' and ``working load limit'' are defined in numerous technical
dictionaries, manuals, and reference books. While each manufacturer
makes a determination of the working load limits of its own products,
the documents incorporated by reference, combined with certain other
requirements in Sec. 393.102, eliminate the risk of voluntary or purely
subjective standards. By incorporating by reference certain
manufacturing standards, this rulemaking establishes specific minimum
strength requirements for five categories of securement devices: steel
strapping, chains, wire rope, cordage, and synthetic webbing.
The FHWA does not believe that tiedown manufacturers will produce
devices which fail to meet these minimum strength requirements. For
those cases in which the manufacturing standards do not provide
specific working load limits (e.g., the document lists breaking
strength or a working load limit range), the final rule establishes the
procedure for determining this information.
In addition, the final rule includes a table of working load limits
for some of the most commonly used types and sizes of tiedowns. The
rule requires that the working load limits listed in the table be used
when the tiedown material is not marked with its working load limit.
The values listed in the table are based on the industry standards
referenced in Sec. 393.102. Therefore, the uncertainty about the
strength of a tiedown is limited to tiedowns which do not meet the
manufacturing standards, and the rule prohibits the use of such
tiedowns.
As for the CHP's comments about possible difficulties in the
enforcement of a working load limit requirement, it is clear that the
CVSA, whose membership includes State officials charged with
enforcement, considered this issue before petitioning the FHWA. Section
393.102 specifies the relationship between the strength rating of the
tiedown devices and the weight of the article being secured. If the
strength rating and weight of the article are known, and the
relationship between the two is clearly stated in Sec. 393.102, the
inspecting official should not have to provide an engineering
discussion or justification of the strength rating requirement.
Furthermore, as the CVSA indicated in its petition, and as several
tiedown manufacturers, manufacturers' associations, and enforcement
agencies have stated in their comments in response to the NPRM, a
working load limit requirement would be easier to understand, use, and
enforce because tiedown manufacturers prefer to label their products
with the working load limit as opposed to the static breaking strength.
The manufacturers believe the use of working load limits would decrease
the likelihood of accidental misuse or overloading of the tiedowns.
The FHWA agrees with Great American Lines' emphasis on training and
education. However, the number of accidents involving inadequately
secured cargo suggests that some motor carriers do not understand or
observe the current regulations. It must be noted that static breaking
strength has been in use for approximately 20 years. During this time,
education and training have played a role in reducing the number of
cargo securement-related accidents to a relatively low level. The final
rule is intended to make the cargo securement regulations easier to
understand, use, and enforce in order to further reduce the incidence
of cargo securement-related accidents.
The TTMA asked whether the term ``tiedown assemblies'' in the
current regulations includes trailer anchor points. The answer is
technically no, but the anchor points have to meet the same standard.
Section 393.102(d) requires that the hook, bolt, weld, or other
connections by which a tiedown assembly is attached to a vehicle, and
the mounting place and means of mounting the connector, be at least as
strong as the tiedown assembly. The final rule does not reference any
manufacturing standards or recommended practices for trailer anchor
points nor does it require trailer manufacturers to change their
current practices regarding anchor points. However, the FHWA encourages
trailer manufacturers to provide information to motor carriers and
enforcement officials about the strength of anchor points to improve
their knowledge of the cargo restraint capabilities of anchor points.
Incorporation by Reference and the Table of Working Load Limits
Generally, the commenters supported the inclusion of the table of
working load limits in Sec. 393.102 and the incorporation by reference
of certain industry standards. Several commenters, however, recommended
additions and/or corrections to the table.
Commenting in opposition to the incorporation by reference of
industry standards, New York stated that ``[a]doption by reference will
cause confusion and make conformance by the industry difficult and also
require the industry and enforcement personnel to use numerous
documents in determining appropriate securement methodologies. The
regulations should be self-contained and clear in their wording.''
Some commenters questioned the need for including requirements for
steel strapping. Maine, for example, stated: ``While strapping may be
used to secure materials to pallets, it is seldom used to hold freight
to a vehicle. Since the material is not reused, it has little direct
vehicle application.'' However, Connecticut argued that ``[e]nforcement
of Section 393.102 would be greatly enhanced if most common dimensions
and strengths of steel strapping were added to the tables of working
load limits.'' The CVSA stated:
The steel strap manufacturers have recently formed an association
which is presently developing recommendations on their products. Steel
strapping is typically not used as the primary load securement device.
Normally the strapping will hold the cargo in bundles or to pallets
while other devices are used to secure those bundles and pallets to the
transporting vehicle. Because steel strapping is not often used as a
direct tiedown device and since the strap manufacturers are now working
through their association to develop strength and use guidelines, we
recommend that this material not be included in the proposed rule at
this time. The new industry standards may well supersede the federal
specification referenced in the docket. Delaying action at this time
could well reduce future confusion over regulatory requirements for
steel strapping.
As for the incorporation by reference of rope standards, the
Cordage Institute stated that ``[s]isal and nylon ropes are not
recommended [for cargo securement applications] and references to their
standards [Sisal Rope Specifications (SRS-1), Nylon Rope Specifications
(NRS-1), and Double Braided Nylon Rope Specifications (C1)] should be
deleted.'' The Cordage Institute did not provide any information to
support this recommendation and no other commenters addressed this
subject. It was recommended that the new standards for polypropylene
fiber rope (PPRS-2, revised August 1992) and polyester fiber rope
(PETRS-2, revised January 1993) be used in place of P/PRS-1, May 1979
and PRS-1, May 1979, respectively. The Cordage Institute also provided
clarification of its recommendations on calculating working load limit
values. Its policy on working load limit values has changed from using
a specific design factor for each size of cordage/rope to a design
factor range. This approach leaves the selection of a specific value to
the particular applications for which the cordage will be used. For
cargo securement applications involving polypropylene and polyester
fiber ropes, the Cordage Institute recommended a design factor of 6--
the working load limit would be equal to \1/6\ of the minimum breaking
strengths listed in PPRS-2 and PETRS-2. The Cordage Institute
recommended that the working load limits for manila rope be \1/2\ that
of the polypropylene fiber rope of the same diameter. Working load
limit values were also recommended for ``California Truck Rope''--rope
meeting the requirements of Title 13 of the California Code of
Regulations, Sec. 1303(e). The Cordage Institute also suggested that
the FHWA include California's Sec. 1303(e) requirements for synthetic
fiber rope (e.g., rope shall be treated for ultraviolet resistance,
rope must have an orange surface marker in each rope strand,
prohibition on the use of solid orange rope, etc.).
In response to those commenters opposed to the incorporation by
reference of certain manufacturing standards, the FHWA notes that the
intent of this process is to reduce the volume of material published in
the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations by referencing
relevant material published by the private sector. The legal effect of
incorporation by reference is that the material is treated as if it
were published in the Federal Register. This material, like any other
properly issued regulation, has the force and effect of law. Motor
carriers do not need to obtain copies of all of the materials which are
incorporated by reference but only those that are relevant to their
specific circumstances (e.g., carriers relying solely upon steel chains
do not need to obtain copies of standards for steel strapping, cordage,
webbing, or wire rope). Although there may be advantages to printing
certain texts from private sector documents in the regulations, the
FHWA does not intend Sec. 393.102 to be a technical reference on
manufacturing standards. Both the volume and complexity of the
information covered in the referenced documents is too great to be
effectively presented in the FMCSRs.
As for the specific documents to be incorporated by reference, the
final rule differs from the NPRM in that it does not refer to Federal
Specification No. A-A-880, Strapping, Steel Flat and Seals (May 13,
1980). Instead, the final rule incorporates American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3953-91, Standard Specification for
Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals. As the CVSA noted in its comments,
steel strap manufacturers, working in conjunction with the ASTM, are
currently developing recommendations or guidelines concerning the use
of steel strapping in load securement. The FHWA has reviewed the
preliminary strength and use guidelines that ASTM Subcommittee D10.14
provided to the CVSA concerning breaking strengths and working load
limits for steel strapping or banding. A copy of the preliminary
strength and use guidelines is included in the docket file. The working
load limits are \1/4\ of the breaking strengths (the breaking strength
multiplied by a design factor of \1/3\ and a ``joint efficiency'' of
0.75) listed in ASTM D3953-91.
After a review of ASTM D3953-91, the FHWA has determined that the
preliminary strength and use guidelines of ASTM Subcommittee D10.14
have merit and could, to some extent, be addressed in the final rule
through the incorporation by reference of ASTM D3953-91. The FHWA has
compared the requirements of Federal Specification No. A-A-880 with
those of ASTM D3953-91 and determined that the ASTM standard
specification would serve as a better reference for manufacturers and
carriers to use in determining if certain sizes or grades of steel
strapping are adequate for cargo securement applications. Although the
ASTM subcommittee (D10.14) is developing new guidelines, most of its
preliminary recommendations are based on ASTM D3953-91. Therefore, the
FHWA believes that it is appropriate to incorporate by reference the
ASTM standard specification at this time, and consider the ASTM
strength and use guidelines for incorporation after they have been
published.
As for cordage specifications, the FHWA is incorporating by
reference (1) CRS-1, Polyester/Polypropylene Composite Rope
Specifications, Three- and Eight-Strand Standard Construction, May
1979, (2) PPRS-2, Polypropylene Fiber Rope, 3-Strand and 8-Strand
Constructions, revised August 1992, (3) PETRS-2, Polyester Fiber Rope,
3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions, revised January 1993, (4) NRS-1,
Nylon Rope Specifications, Three- and Eight-Strand Standard
Construction, May 1979, and (5) C1, Double Braided Nylon Rope
Specifications, DBN-January 1984. The incorporation of CRS-1, NRS-1 and
C1 is consistent with the NPRM and the inclusion of PPRS-2 and PETRS-2
is in response to the docket comments. The FHWA has reviewed the
Cordage Institute's recommendation concerning the working load limits
for manila rope (three-strand laid construction), and notes that the
recommendation results in (1) an increase in the working load limit for
rope with diameters of \3/16\ through \1/2\ inch and 2\1/2\ through 4
inches, and (2) a decrease in the working load limits for diameters of
\9/16\ through 2\1/4\ inches. The increases in working load limits are
generally between 1 and 5 percent for the 2\1/2\ through 4 inch
diameter ropes. The percentage increases in the working load limits of
\3/16\ through \1/2\-inch rope are much larger. However, the safety
factors provided in MRS-1 for \3/16\ through \1/2\-inch rope were
greater than those of the larger diameter ropes. The FHWA believes the
working load limit recommendations of the Cordage Institute provide
reasonable safety factors for manila rope. Accordingly, the FHWA is
adopting these recommendations as part of the table of working load
limits in the final rule. In light of the Cordage Institute's
recommendations concerning manila rope working load limits, the FHWA
does not believe that it is appropriate to incorporate by reference
MRS-1. To do so would result in a contradiction between the working
load limits contained in MRS-1 and the working load limits (for cargo
securement applications) recommended by the Cordage Institute.
The FHWA accepts the Cordage Institute's suggestion to delete the
reference to sisal rope (SRS-1), but does not believe that excluding
nylon rope specifications from the final rule is appropriate. The final
rule is not intended to incorporate standards for all tiedown
materials, but only the most commonly used. In that context, and in
consideration of the relatively low working load limits for sisal rope
the FHWA does not believe that including a specification for sisal rope
is essential. The FHWA notes that the rule does not prohibit the use of
sisal rope.
As for the nylon rope specifications, the references remain as
originally proposed. Although the agency cannot quantify the extent to
which nylon rope is used, the working load limits for nylon rope are
such that its usage in cargo securement applications is likely.
The FHWA is not adopting the Cordage Institute's recommendation to
include rope requirements similar to those used in the California Code
of Regulations. With the exception of California's requirement for
ultraviolet resistance, the FHWA considers this particular regulatory
language unnecessarily design restrictive in that it would prohibit,
without sufficient technical justification, certain synthetic rope and
webbing based primarily on material and/or color, irrespective of its
strength or safety for use in cargo securement. As for ultraviolet
resistance requirements, the Cordage Institute did not provide, and the
California regulations do not include, sufficient information to enable
the FHWA to establish specific and objective regulatory language.
The NPRM requested comments on the method used in determining the
working load limit for wire rope which is not marked. Four commenters
responded to this request. All supported the method described in the
NPRM (i.e., \1/4\ of the nominal strength--the nominal strength
multiplied by a design factor of \1/3\ and the ``termination
efficiency,'' 0.75). Therefore, Sec. 393.102(b) includes this method
for determining the working load limit of unmarked wire rope.
Marking and Labeling of Tiedown Devices
Several commenters responded to the FHWA's questions concerning the
need for requiring the use of only those tiedown devices which are
marked or labeled with the working load limit. For example, the CVSA
stated:
Manufacturers of tiedowns have indicated that they are willing to
mark load securement devices with working load limit ratings. We
believe having working load values marked on load securement devices is
a significant aid to their proper use and we would like to see such
markings universally required.
We recognize that presently, much of the tiedown equipment in the
field is either unmarked or not directly marked with working load
limit. As it would be an extreme waste of resources and a huge
financial burden on carriers to scrap today's inventory of products not
marked with working load limit, we would recommend the requirement for
marking working load limits be made effective at some future date,
i.e., three to five years. Another way to handle this would be to
grandfather the tiedown equipment already manufactured and being used
by the motor carrier industry.
New York believed the final rule should ``clearly state that
unmarked cargo securement devices, steel strapping, chain, webbing,
wire rope, etc. will not be allowed and will cause vehicles
transporting materials with unmarked devices to be placed out-of-
service. There is no way to effectively ensure the adequacy of unmarked
devices.''
The OOIDA stated:
Owner-operators frequently purchase tie-down hooks, chains, wire
ropes, etc. at truck stops or other similar locations. Drivers need to
be assured that the items purchased meet all applicable safety
standards. Therefore, the Agency should take steps to require prominent
displays on packaging that will ensure that the product meets safety
requirements. Specific details on packaging as to working load limit
are preferable to general statements that manufacturing standards are
met.
While the FHWA is aware of the need for carriers and enforcement
officials to be able to identify the various cargo securement devices
and the associated working load limits, the final rule does not include
a requirement for marking and labeling of these devices. Such a
requirement must take into account manufacturers' practices as well as
the need for uniformity. The commenters did not provide any listings of
current marking and labeling practices to assist the FHWA in
determining appropriate regulatory language. The agency cannot estimate
what percentage of tiedown equipment currently in use by motor carriers
or stocked by manufacturers and retailers is unmarked or not directly
marked with a working load limit. Although a general requirement for
the use of marked and labeled equipment could be included in
Sec. 393.102, the absence of specific and objective guidelines as to
what constitutes an acceptable mark or label for each type of tiedown
(i.e., chain, synthetic webbing, wire rope, steel strapping, cordage)
would create enforcement difficulties. The FHWA encourages tiedown
manufacturers to develop uniform systems of marking and labeling their
products to assist motor carriers and enforcement officials in
determining working load limits.
Applicability of Cargo Securement Regulations to Shippers
New York and the OOIDA expressed concern about the applicability of
the cargo securement regulations to shippers. Citing the catastrophic
results of accidents caused by inadequate securement of steel and
aluminum products, New York believed the ``federal regulations should
assign responsibility for proper cargo securement of steel and aluminum
products to both the shipper and the carrier.'' The OOIDA stated:
A large degree of responsibility for cargo securement lies squarely
with the individual shipper. It is the shipper who selects and
ultimately contracts with various motor carriers to transport their
commodities. Each shipper has an obligation to scrutinize every
prospective carrier and engage only those capable of providing the
proper equipment and expertise necessary to safely haul their specific
product.
The FHWA acknowledges these concerns. Whatever the merits of these
arguments, however, the FHWA has no statutory authority to regulate
shippers of steel and aluminum products.
Future Rulemakings on Cargo Securement
Several commenters discussed the need for amending or clarifying
numerous provisions of the cargo securement regulations as well as the
need for research. The Illinois Department of Transportation wrote:
Illinois is concerned that application of the proposed aggregate
working load limit formula may not provide adequate margins of safety.
What may be considered adequate securement for general freight may not
be adequate for other loads. The regulations identify unique securement
standards for intermodal containers. Coils and metal articles also have
special securement requirements. Cargo weight and load configuration
both need to be factored into the performance standards expected from
tiedown systems * * *.
The potential gravity and actual severity of incidents involving
the transportation of metal coils, their frequency of occurrence and
the high number of apparent violations of the securement regulations
give credibility to the need to reevaluate the securement regulations.
These concerns have led Illinois to sponsor a university research
project to examine the unique properties of metal coil cargo securement
* * *.
The project will take 15 months and focus upon five areas: (1)
Review and evaluate current systems, (2) examine the volume of coils
transported and the types of securement systems in use in Illinois, (3)
evaluate the knowledge of persons using or enforcing the securement
regulations, (4) perform engineering dynamic studies to evaluate
securement systems, and (5) recommend improvements in securement
systems and/or educational efforts for persons involved in both the
transportation and enforcement areas of the regulations. Upon its
completion, the results and conclusion of this project will be made
available to FHWA and other parties interested in transportation
safety.
The research project will examine the dynamic forces affecting
securement systems during normal driving and during less than ideal
transportation conditions such as hard braking, emergency maneuvers or
sharp radius turns. Illinois' data indicates loss of cargo commonly
occurs during these less than ideal conditions.
The FHWA welcomes efforts by academia, tiedown and vehicle
manufacturers, motor carriers, and others conducting research or
studies directed at reducing the incidence of cargo securement-related
accidents. Currently the FHWA is working with the Canadian Council of
Motor Transport Administrators, State and Provincial agencies
responsible for motor carrier safety activities, and U.S. and Canadian
industry groups to conduct a comprehensive research program on cargo
securement. A report identifying certain cargo securement issues
needing research and describing a program to address them was published
by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation in November 1993. A copy of
the report entitled ``A Proposal for Research to Provide a Technical
Basis for a Revised National Standard on Load Security for Heavy
Trucks'' is included in the docket file. It is expected that this
research, along with efforts such as those described by Illinois, will
contribute greatly toward evaluating current cargo securement
regulations and industry practices and providing recommendations for
specific actions needed to improve safety.
This final rule is not intended to preclude consideration of future
rulemakings on cargo securement.
Discussion of Final Rule
The FHWA is amending Sec. 393.102(b) to require that the aggregate
working load limit of the tiedown assemblies used to secure an article
against movement in any direction be at least \1/2\ the weight of the
article secured. Steel strapping, chain, synthetic webbing, wire rope,
and cordage used must meet certain manufacturing or performance
standards which are incorporated by reference. The incorporation of
these standards is intended to specify minimum requirements for
tiedowns and not to restrict the use of tiedowns which exceed the
criteria contained therein.
Section 393.7, which was proposed in its entirety in the NPRM, was
created by the final rule entitled ``Parts and Accessories Necessary
for Safe Operation; Warning Devices for Stopped Vehicles'' (RIN 2125-
AD17; FHWA Docket No. MC-93-19), which is published elsewhere in
today's Federal Register. The FHWA is amending Sec. 393.7, Matter
incorporated by reference, to provide the language of incorporation
required by 1 CFR 51 and to provide information on the availability of
the incorporated documents. After a review of the responses to the
September 17, 1993, NPRM and a determination that the incorporation by
reference was necessary for the final rule, the FHWA submitted the
documents listed in Sec. 393.102(b)(1) to (b)(5) to the Director of the
Federal Register for approval in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR 51.
The final rule does not require tiedowns to be marked or labeled.
However, manufacturers of tiedowns and associated equipment are
encouraged to provide motor carriers and enforcement officials with a
means to easily determine the working load limits of their products.
For those cases in which the tiedown manufacturing standards
(incorporated by reference into the final rule) include guidelines for
marking and labeling, adherence to those guidelines is encouraged, but
is not mandated.
Section 393.102(b) is amended to include a table of working load
limits for common types and sizes of tiedown devices. The working load
limits listed in the table are to be used when the tiedown material is
not marked by the manufacturer with the working load limit. Tiedown
materials marked by the manufacturer with working load limits which
differ from the table, shall be considered to have a working load limit
equal to the value for which they are marked.
With regard to the working load limits for cordage, the table lists
values for manila, polypropylene, polyester, and nylon cordage. For
those cases in which the a synthetic rope does not have a
manufacturers' marking or label to enable motor carriers and
enforcement officials to distinguish between polypropylene, polyester
fiber ropes, polyester/polypropylene composite rope, or nylon rope, the
working load limits of polypropylene fiber rope shall be used. Since
polypropylene fiber rope generally has a lower working load limit than
polyester and nylon ropes, this provision is important to ensure
safety. The agency notes that the working load limits for nylon rope
are based on the specific design factors in the nylon rope
specifications, NRS-1 and C1. These design factors are between 9 and 12
for three- and eight-strand standard construction nylon rope and
between 7 and 11 for double braided nylon rope. As a result, the
working load limits shown in Sec. 393.102 for certain sizes of nylon
rope are lower than that for polypropylene fiber rope. Considering the
Cordage Institute's recommendation for a design factor of 6 for
polypropylene fiber rope and polyester rope, the FHWA believes that the
use of polypropylene fiber rope working load limits is appropriate in
those cases in which the rope cannot be identified as nylon. The table
of working load limits does not include information on polyester/
polypropylene composite rope because the working load limit values are
generally very close, if not identical, to those of polypropylene fiber
rope.
In the case of steel strapping, wire rope, and cordage, the final
rule includes a procedure for calculating the working load limits. The
published industry standards for these materials use breaking
strengths, nominal strengths, and working load limit ranges
respectively. To ensure consistency in calculating the working load
limits and an appropriate safety margin in determining the number of
tiedown devices required, these procedures must be used when the
working load limit is not provided by the manufacturer or when the
manufacturer provides working load limit ranges for cargo securement
applications.
Ruelmaking Analysis and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule amends the requirements for the strength ratings
for cargo securement devices. The FHWA has determined that this is not
a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 or significant within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the
economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. The final rule
requires that the aggregate working load limits of the tiedown
assemblies used to secure cargo be at least 1/2 times the weight of the
article being secured. The total number of tiedown assemblies required
by the rule would generally be the same as or slightly more than the
number required using the previous breaking strength terminology. It is
anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be
minimal. Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the agency has evaluated the effects of this rulemaking on small
entities. As previously stated, the final rule amends Sec. 393.102(b)
of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations by requiring that the
aggregate working load limits of the tiedown assemblies used to secure
cargo be at least 1/2 times the weight of the article being secured.
The total number of tiedown assemblies required by the rule would
generally be the same as or slightly more than the number required
prior to this amendment. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA certifies
that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that this rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. Nothing in this
document directly preempts any State law or regulation.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor
Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and
activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document does not contain information collection requirements
[44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.].
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
has determined that this action would not have any effect on the
quality of the environment.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393
Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers, Motor
vehicle safety.
Issued on: June 23, 1994.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending part 393 of
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.
PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION
[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 393 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914,
1993 (1991), 49 U.S.C. 3102; 49 U.S.C. app. 2505; 49 CFR 1.48.
2. Section 393.7 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(2) through
(b)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 393.7 Matter incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(b) Availability. The materials incorporated by reference are
available as follows:
(1) * * *
(2) Specifications of the American Society for Testing and
Materials. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to:
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
(3) Specifications of the National Association of Chain
Manufacturers. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to:
National Association of Chain Manufacturers, P.O. Box 3143, York,
Pennsylvania 17402-0143.
(4) Specifications of the Web Sling and Tiedown Association.
Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: Web Sling and
Tiedown Association, Inc., 710 East Ogden Avenue, Suite 113,
Naperville, Illinois 60563.
(5) Manuals of the Wire Rope Technical Board. Information and
copies may be obtained by writing to: Wire Rope Technical Committee,
P.O. Box 849, Stevensville, Maryland 21666.
(6) Standards of the Cordage Institute. Information and copies may
be obtained by writing to: Cordage Institute, 350 Lincoln Street,
115, Hingham, Massachusetts 02043.
(7)-(9) [Reserved].
* * * * *
3. Section 393.102 is amended by removing paragraph (g) and by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 393.102 Securement systems.
* * * * *
(b) Tiedown assemblies. Except for integral securement devices of
containers designed for the transportation of containerized, intermodal
cargo which conform to the rules in Sec. 393.100(e), the aggregate
working load limit of the tiedown assemblies used to secure an article
against movement in any direction must be at least 1/2 times the weight
of the article. With the exception of marking identification, tiedowns
used must meet applicable manufacturing standards listed in this
paragraph (b).
(1) Steel strapping. Steel strapping used as a component of a
tiedown assembly must conform to the requirements of the 1991 edition
of the American Society for Testing and Materials' Standard
Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals, ASTM D3953-91. Steel
strapping which is not marked by the manufacturer with a working load
limit, shall be considered to have a working load limit equal to 1/4 of
the breaking strength listed in ASTM D3953-91. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for
information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this
document.) Steel strapping that is one inch wide or wider must have at
least two pairs of crimps in each seal and when an end-over-end lap
joint is formed, it must be sealed with at least two seals.
(2) Chain. Chain used as a component of a tiedown assembly must
conform to the requirements of the June 15, 1990, edition of the
National Association of Chain Manufacturers' Welded Steel Chain
Specifications applicable to all types of chain. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for
information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this
document.)
(3) Webbing. Webbing used as a component of a tiedown assembly must
conform to the requirements of the 1991 edition of the Web Sling and
Tiedown Association's Recommended Standard Specification for Synthetic
Webbing Tiedowns. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for information on the
incorporation by reference and availability of this document.)
(4) Wire rope. Wire rope used as a component of a tiedown assembly
must conform to the requirements of the November 1985 second edition of
the Wire Rope Technical Board's Wire Rope Users Manual. Wire rope which
is not marked by the manufacturer with a working load limit, shall be
considered to have a working load limit equal to \1/4\ of the nominal
strength listed in the Wire Rope Users Manual. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for
information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this
document.)
(5) Cordage. Cordage used as a component of a tiedown assembly,
must conform to the applicable Cordage Institute rope standards listed
below: PETRS-2, Polyester Fiber Rope, 3-Strand and 8-Strand
Constructions, January, 1993; PPRS-2, Polypropylene Fiber Rope, 3-
Strand and 8-Strand Constructions, August, 1992; CRS-1, Polyester/
Polypropylene Composite Rope Specifications, Three- and Eight-Strand
Standard Construction, May 1979; NRS-1, Nylon Rope Specifications,
Three- and Eight-Strand Standard Construction, May 1979; C1, Double
Braided Nylon Rope Specifications, DBN-January 1984. (See Sec. 393.7(b)
for information on the incorporation by reference and availability of
these documents.)
(6) Tables of working load limits. The working load limits listed
in the tables in this paragraph are to be used when the tiedown
material is not marked by the manufacturer with the working load limit.
Tiedown materials which are marked by the manufacturer with working
load limits which differ from the table, shall be considered to have a
working load limit equal to the value for which they are marked.
Synthetic cordage (e.g., nylon, polypropylene, polyester) which is not
marked or labeled to enable identification of its composition or
working load limit shall be considered to have a working load limit
equal to that for polypropylene fiber rope.
Tables to Sec. 393.102(b)(6)--Working Load Limits (WLL)
[Chain WLL in pounds (kg)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade 3 proof Grade 4 high Grade 7
Size inch (mm) coil test transport Grade 8 alloy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/4\ (7)............................... 1300 (590) 2600 (1180) 3150 (1430) 3500 (1590)
\5/16\ (8).............................. 1900 (860) 3900 (1770) 4700 (2130) 5100 (2310)
\3/8\ (10).............................. 2650 (1200) 5400 (2450) 6600 (2990) 7100 (3220)
\7/16\ (11)............................. 3500 (1590) 5800 (2630) 8750 (3970) ................
\1/2\ (13).............................. 4500 (2040) 9200 (4170) 11300 (5130) 12000 (5440)
\5/8\ (16).............................. 6900 (3130) 11500 (5220) 15800 (7170) 18100 (8210)
Chain Mark.............................. PC HT ................ T
Examples................................ 3 4 7 8
30 40 70 80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synthetic Webbing WLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width inch (mm) WLL pounds (kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-\3/4\ (45).......................................... 1750 (790)
2 (50)................................................ 2000 (910)
3 (75)................................................ 3000 (1360)
4 (100)............................................... 4000 (1810)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wire Rope (6 X 37, Fiber Core) WLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diameter inch (mm) WLL pounds (kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/4\ (7)............................................. 1400 (640)
\5/16\ (8)............................................ 2100 (950)
\3/8\ (10)............................................ 3000 (1360)
\7/16\ (11)........................................... 4100 (1860)
\1/2\ (13)............................................ 5300 (2400)
\5/8\ (16)............................................ 8300 (3770)
\3/4\ (20)............................................ 10900 (4940)
\7/8\ (22)............................................ 16100 (7300)
1 (25)................................................ 20900 (9480)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manila Rope WLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3/8\ (10)............................................ 205 (90)
\7/16\ (11)........................................... 265 (120)
\1/2\ (13)............................................ 315 (150)
\5/8\ (16)............................................ 465 (210)
\3/4\ (20)............................................ 640 (290)
1 (25)................................................ 1050 (480)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polypropylene Fiber Rope WLL (3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3/8\ (10)............................................ 400 (180)
\7/16\ (11)........................................... 525 (240)
\1/2\ (13)............................................ 625 (280)
\5/8\ (16)............................................ 925 (420)
\3/4\ (20)............................................ 1275 (580)
1 (25)................................................ 2100 (950)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyester Fiber Rope WLL (3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3/8\ (10)............................................ 555 (250)
\7/16\ (11)........................................... 750 (340)
\1/2\ (13)............................................ 960 (440)
\5/8\ (16)............................................ 1500 (680)
\3/4\ (20)............................................ 1880 (850)
1 (25)................................................ 3300 (1500)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nylon Rope WLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3/8\ (10)............................................ 278 (130)
\7/16\ (11)........................................... 410 (190)
\1/2\ (13)............................................ 525 (240)
\5/8\ (16)............................................ 935 (420)
\3/4\ (20)............................................ 1420 (640)
1 (25)................................................ 2520 (1140)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double Braided Nylon Rope WLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3/8\ (10)............................................ 336 (150)
\7/16\ (11)........................................... 502 (230)
\1/2\ (13)............................................ 655 (300)
\5/8\ (16)............................................ 1130 (510)
\3/4\ (20)............................................ 1840 (830)
1 (25)................................................ 3250 (1470)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Strapping WLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width - thickness inch WLL pounds (kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-\1/4\ x 0.029..................................... 1190 (540)
1-\1/4\ x 0.031..................................... 1190 (540)
1-\1/4\ x 0.035..................................... 1190 (540)
1-\1/4\ x 0.044..................................... 1690 (770)
1-\1/4\ x 0.050..................................... 1690 (770)
1-\1/4\ x 0.057..................................... 1925 (870)
2 x 0.044........................................... 2650 (1200)
2 x 0.050........................................... 2650 (1200)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-16069 Filed 7-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
