Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Protection Against Shifting and Falling Cargo, 33430-33440 [05-11332]

Agencies

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33430-33440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11332]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[Docket No. FMCSA-2005-21259]
RIN 2126-AA88


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

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is 
proposing to amend its September 27, 2002, final rule concerning 
protection against shifting and falling cargo for commercial motor 
vehicles (CMVs) engaged in interstate commerce in response to petitions 
for rulemaking from the American Trucking Associations (ATA), Forest 
Products Association of Canada, Georgia-Pacific Corporation and 
Weyerhaeuser, and in response to issues raised by the Canadian Council 
of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), the Forest Resources 
Association, Inc., the Washington Contract Loggers Association and the 
Washington Log Truckers Conference, and the Timber Producers 
Association of Michigan and Wisconsin. The amendments are intended to 
make the final rule more consistent with the December 18, 2000, notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and the North American Cargo Securement 
Standard Model Regulations the new rules are based upon. This 
rulemaking would also include several editorial corrections to the 
final rule.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 8, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 
FMCSA-2004-19608 by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking (RIN 2126-AA90). Note that all comments received will be 
posted without change to https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal 
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading for further 
information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
    Comments received after the comment closing date will be included 
in the docket and we will consider late comments to the extent 
practicable. FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule at any time after 
the close of the comment period.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is organized as follows:

I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
II. Background
III. Petitions for Reconsideration
    A. Summary of the Petitions for Reconsideration
    B. FMCSA Response to the Petitioners
IV. ATA Petition for Rulemaking
    A. Summary of ATA Concerns
    B. FMCSA Response to ATA Concerns
V. CCMTA Concerns About the Relationship Between the Performance 
Criteria and Working Load Limits
    A. Summary of CCMTA's Concerns
    B. FMCSA Response to CCMTA
VI. Forest Resources Assocation's Concerns About Section 393.116
    A. Summary of the Forest Resource Association's Concerns

[[Page 33431]]

    B. FMCSA Response to the Forest Resources Association
VII. Washington Contract Loggers Association and Washington Log 
Truckers Conference--Section 393.116
    A. Summary of Washington Loggers' and Log Truckers' Concerns
    B. FMCSA Response to Washington Loggers and Log Truckers
VIII. Timber Producers Association of Michigan and Wisconsin--
Section 393.116
    A. Summary of the Timber Producers Association's Concerns
    B. FMCSA Response to Timber Producers Association
IX. Miscellaneous Amendments--Manufacturing Standards for Tiedowns, 
Dressed Lumber, Metal Coils, Paper Rolls, Intermodal Containers, 
Flattened or Crushed Cars
    A. Manufacturing Standards for Tiedowns
    B. Dressed Lumber and Similar Building Products
    C. Metal Coils
    D. Paper Rolls
    E. Intermodal Containers
    F. Flattened or Crushed Cars
X. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

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

II. Background

    On September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61212), FMCSA published a final rule 
revising its regulations concerning protection against shifting and 
falling cargo for CMVs operated in interstate commerce. The 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 the then-current U.S. and 
Canadian cargo securement regulations; the motor carrier industry's 
best practices; and recommendations presented during a series of public 
meetings involving U.S. and Canadian industry experts, Federal, State 
and Provincial enforcement officials, and other interested parties. The 
Agency indicated that the intent of the rulemaking is to reduce the 
number of crashes caused by cargo shifting on or within, or falling 
from, CMVs operating in interstate commerce, and to harmonize to the 
greatest extent practicable U.S., Canadian and Mexican cargo securement 
regulations. Motor carriers were given until January 1, 2004, to comply 
with the new regulations.

III. Petitions for Reconsideration

A. Summary of the Petitions for Reconsideration

    FMCSA received separate petitions for reconsideration of the final 
rule from the Forest Products Association of Canada, Georgia-Pacific 
Corporation and Weyerhaeuser. However, each petition

[[Page 33432]]

requested the same changes to the final rule, for the same reasons. 
Therefore, for the purposes of this notice, the Agency refers to the 
Association and the two companies collectively as ``the Petitioners.'' 
A copy of each petition is included in the docket referenced at the 
beginning of this notice. Although each of the Petitioners considered 
its request to be a petition for reconsideration of the final rule, all 
the requests were submitted after the deadline provided in 49 CFR 
389.35 (i.e., petitions for reconsideration must be submitted no later 
than 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register). Therefore, the petitions are being treated as petitions for 
rulemaking in accordance with 49 CFR 389.35.
    The Petitioners requested nine specific amendments to the final 
rule:
    1. Revise Sec.  393.102(d) to provide a third option regarding 
equivalent means of securement that would satisfy the performance 
criteria. The Petitioners believe the use of the term ``immobilized'' 
means the cargo securement system must not allow any movement at all 
which is in conflict with the reality that regardless of the securement 
system being used, there will be some movement.
    2. Amend Sec.  393.104 by removing the reference to ``vehicle 
structures'' from paragraph (b) and removing the reference to cuts and 
cracks from paragraphs (b) and (c). The Petitioners believe the 
reference to ``vehicle structures'' should only appear in Sec.  
393.104(c) and that the phrase ``must not have any cracks or cuts'' is 
problematic because most vehicles have minor areas of stress that could 
be considered cracks.
    3. Revise Sec.  393.106(a) to insert the proper paragraph numbers 
to encompass the commodity-specific rules. Section 393.106(a) 
incorrectly references Sec. Sec.  393.122 through 393.142 instead of 
Sec. Sec.  393.116 through 393.136.
    4. Revise Sec.  393.106(d) to explain in greater detail the 
methodology for determining the aggregate working load limit for a 
cargo securement system.
    5. Revise the title of Sec.  393.108 to include reference to 
friction mats, thereby avoiding the incorrect identification of 
friction mats as a tiedown.
    6. Revise Sec.  393.108(a) to include an example to clarify the 
working load limits of associated connectors and attachment mechanisms.
    7. Revise Sec.  393.110(a) to avoid suggesting that all types of 
cargo require the use of tiedowns to comply with the rules. The 
Petitioners recommend that paragraph (a) be revised so that it is 
applicable only when tiedowns are being used.
    8. Revise Sec.  393.110(c) to avoid suggesting that individual 
articles of cargo are required to be blocked, braced or immobilized. 
The Petitioners requested that paragraph (c) be revised to be 
applicable only when blocking and bracing is being used.
    9. Revise Sec.  393.114(b)(1) to eliminate a typographical error: 
the paragraph incorrectly states ``forward movement of any item of 
article'' instead of ``forward movement of any item or article.''

B. FMCSA Response to the Petitioners

1. Section 393.102(d)
    FMCSA agrees with the Petitioners on this issue. Section 393.102(d) 
should be amended to explicitly state that the phrase ``equivalent 
means of securement'' includes loading arrangements in which the cargo 
fills a sided vehicle of adequate strength, and every article of cargo 
is in contact with, or sufficiently close to, a wall or other articles 
so that it cannot shift or tip if those articles are also unable to 
shift or tip. Although the Agency intended that use of the term 
``immobilized'' in Sec.  393.102(d) would encompass such loading 
arrangements as an option for satisfying the performance criteria in 
Sec.  393.102(a), we agree the term could be construed to prohibit even 
the slightest of movements and consequently does not adequately express 
the full intent of Sec.  393.102(d).
    The proposed change to Sec.  393.102(d) would clarify that van type 
trailers carrying cargo need not use tiedowns so long as cargo is 
loaded in such a way as to prevent cargo from shifting or falling 
during transport. The rule as originally written could be read to imply 
that all trailers with walls for restraining cargo (such as van type 
trailers) would have to use tiedowns when transporting cargo in order 
to prevent shifting of cargo. FMCSA did not intend to impose the use of 
tiedowns on cargo loaded on trailers with sidewalls that are of 
adequate strength, and which are loaded in such a way as to prevent 
cargo from shifting or spilling during transport. This section of the 
rule clarifies the conditions under which tiedowns are necessary, and 
those under which FMCSA considers sidewall restraints and proper 
loading to adequately contain cargo during shipment. This change was 
made in response to comments from industry representatives, including 
the following from the Weyerhauser Corporation:

    ``However, the 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.''

    Therefore, to avoid potential misunderstandings about the 
requirements by motor carriers, drivers and enforcement personnel, the 
Agency would revise Sec.  393.102(d) to incorporate the change noted 
above.
2. Section 393.104(b) and (c)
    FMCSA agrees with the Petitioners that the reference to ``vehicle 
structures'' should not appear in paragraph (b). The term ``vehicle 
structures'' should appear only in paragraph (c) of Sec.  393.104. 
Paragraph (b) is intended to cover devices and components used to 
secure articles of cargo to the vehicle, while paragraph (c) is 
intended to focus on vehicle structures and anchor points. The Agency 
would revise paragraph (b) to remove the reference to ``vehicle 
structures.''
    FMCSA also agrees with the Petitioners that the use of the phrase 
``must not have any cracks or cuts'' at the end of paragraphs (b) and 
(c) could be construed as prohibiting all cracks and cuts on cargo 
securement devices, systems or vehicle components used to secure cargo 
regardless of whether such imperfections adversely affect their 
performance for cargo securement purposes. This is not the Agency's 
intent. As indicated in the preamble to the final rule (67 FR 61212, at 
61220) the Agency indicated that the defects or deficiencies of concern 
were those that are capable of having an adverse effect on the 
performance of the cargo securement system. The Agency continues to 
believe this approach is appropriate and that a blanket prohibition 
against any visible damage, regardless of severity, is not warranted. 
Accordingly, FMCSA would revise Sec. Sec.  393.104(b) and (c) to limit 
the prohibition against cracks or cuts to situations where the damage 
will adversely effect the performance of the cargo securement device.
3. Section 393.106(a)
    The Petitioners are correct that Sec.  393.106(a) of the final rule 
makes reference to the wrong sections when discussing the commodity-
specific rules. Section 393.106(a) incorrectly

[[Page 33433]]

references Sec. Sec.  393.122 through 393.142 when it should have made 
reference to Sec. Sec.  393.116 through 393.136. Therefore, FMCSA would 
correct this error.
4. Section 393.106(d)
    FMCSA agrees with the Petitioners that the current rules providing 
guidance on determining the aggregate working load limit should be 
revised. The Agency does not believe the revision needs to be as 
extensive as the Petitioners suggest.
    The Petitioners are correct that the working load limit of a 
tiedown and its associated attachment point(s) is controlled by the 
weakest link. If a tiedown is stronger than the anchor points, the 
working load limit of the anchor points would be used to determine the 
working load limit of the tiedown, as installed. If an anchor point is 
stronger than the chain, synthetic webbing, wire rope, etc. connected 
to it, the tiedown is the weakest link and the working load limit for 
the tiedown should be based on that weakest link. FMCSA believes the 
weakest link concept for cargo securement systems is well understood by 
enforcement personnel, motor carriers and drivers, and reinforced by 
the Agency's definition of ``tiedown'' in Sec.  393.5 and by Sec.  
393.108(a).
    The definition of ``tiedown,'' provided in 49 CFR 393.5, explains 
it is a combination of securement 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 points. Section 
393.108(a) provides that the working load limit 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.
    FMCSA believes the formula for determining the aggregate working 
load limit for tiedowns should be more simply stated as the sum of:
    (1) One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that goes from 
an anchor point on the vehicle to an attachment point on an article of 
cargo; and
    (2) The working load limit for each tiedown that goes from an 
anchor point on the vehicle, through, over or around the cargo and then 
attaches to another anchor point on the vehicle.
    The Agency believes this straightforward wording, combined with the 
Agency's definition of tiedown and the explicit guidance to use the 
lowest working load limit of any of the components in a given tiedown 
when determining the working load limit for that tiedown, will ensure 
motor carriers, drivers, and enforcement personnel better understand 
the aggregate working load limit requirement.
5. Section 393.108
    FMCSA agrees with the Petitioners that the title of this section 
should be revised to more accurately reflect the role of friction mats 
in a cargo securement system. The current title provides the reader 
with no means of recognizing there is a paragraph therein concerning 
friction mats.
6. Section 393.108(a)
    FMCSA disagrees with the Petitioners about the need for the 
inclusion of an example for determining the working load limit for a 
cargo securement system. While examples may be helpful they are not 
necessarily appropriate for publication in the Code of Federal 
Regulations. The Agency believes the revision of Sec.  393.106(d) will 
resolve any remaining confusion regarding the process for determining 
the aggregate working load limit for a cargo securement system.
7. Section 393.110(a)
    FMCSA agrees with Petitioners that Sec.  393.110(a) should be 
revised so that the requirement is applicable only when tiedowns are 
being used. This change is consistent with the intent of the final rule 
and the Agency considers it to be an editorial correction.
8. Section 393.110(c)
    FMCSA agrees with Petitioners that Sec.  393.110(c) should be 
revised so that the requirement is applicable only when blocking, 
bracing or some other means of immobilization is being used. This 
change is consistent with the intent of the rule and the Agency 
considers it to be an editorial correction.
9. Section 393.114(b)(1)
    FMCSA agrees with the Petitioners that the Agency should revise 
Sec.  393.114(b)(1) to replace ``forward movement of any item of 
article'' with ``forward movement of any item or article.'' This is an 
editorial correction and the Agency would make this change.

IV. ATA Petition for Rulemaking

A. Summary of ATA Concerns

    On June 9, 2004, ATA filed a petition for rulemaking for 
reconsideration of the September 27, 2002, final rule. Because the 
petition was submitted well after the deadline for petitions for 
reconsideration provided in 49 CFR 389.35 (i.e., petitions for 
reconsideration must be submitted no later than 30 days after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register), FMCSA considers 
the ATA request to be a petition for rulemaking. A copy of the ATA 
petition is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this 
document.
    ATA requested FMCSA revise Sec.  393.102(c) to adopt the forward 
and lateral acceleration values of 0.4 g (defined in Sec.  393.5 as the 
acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 ft/sec \2\ (9.81 m/sec \2\)) and 0.25 
g, respectively, based on the Agency's December 31, 2003, enforcement 
policy memorandum. This issue is discussed in detail in the section 
concerning CCMTA's concerns about the relationship between the 
performance criteria and working load limits.
    ATA also requested that the Agency remove Sec.  393.104(f)(4) from 
the new cargo securement regulations. Section 393.104(f)(4) requires 
that 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 the rub rails whenever practicable. ATA believes the 
term ``whenever practicable'' is inherently subjective. Requiring 
securement devices to remain inboard whenever practicable means motor 
carriers must: Attach tiedowns directly to the underside of the 
trailer, potentially preventing proper securement; or, attach tiedowns 
using industry standard practices and risk being issued a fine or 
placed out of service by enforcement personnel who have a different 
interpretation of ``practicable.''
    In addition, ATA requested FMCSA to revise Sec.  
393.118(d)(3)(iv)(B) concerning securement requirements for dressed 
lumber or similar building products. ATA believes the wording is 
confusing because it is being used to account for every load of more 
than two tiers of products. Furthermore, the use of the word ``tier'' 
is subject to being misinterpreted because the paragraph does not 
clarify whether the usage of the word ``tier'' is intended to cover the 
vertical, longitudinal or lateral direction.

B. FMCSA Response to ATA Concerns

    FMCSA agrees with ATA that Sec.  393.102(c) should be revised to 
use 0.4 g deceleration in the forward direction and 0.25 g acceleration 
in a lateral direction when determining whether the working load limit 
for cargo securement devices or systems would be exceeded. A more in-
depth discussion of this issue is presented in the section of this 
notice addressing CCMTA's concerns.
    With regard to Sec.  393.104(f)(4), FMCSA has provided a 
clarification of the

[[Page 33434]]

requirement indicating that if the trailer is designed and equipped so 
that there is no other practicable means of attaching the tiedowns to 
the trailer so that they are prevented from becoming loose, unfastened 
or released while the vehicle is in transit--required by Sec.  
393.104(f)(3)--then attaching the tiedown to the rub rails should not 
be considered a violation of Sec.  393.104(f)(4). However, based on the 
number of inquiries received from State enforcement officials and motor 
carriers, and understanding their perspectives in interpreting the 
regulation, the Agency agrees the requirement should be rescinded. The 
Agency does not believe it is possible to achieve uniform and 
consistent enforcement of this provision.
    Although Sec.  393.104(f)(3) was adopted to ensure that motor 
carriers do not expose tiedowns to potential damages if the vehicle 
rubs against a fixed object such as a highway barricade, this mode of 
failure for tiedowns appears to be extremely rare. Therefore, the 
Agency does not believe rescinding this paragraph would have an adverse 
impact on safety.
    FMCSA agrees with ATA about the need to revise Sec.  
393.118(d)(3)(iv)(B). The current wording is ambiguous at best. FMCSA 
agrees the requirement should be interpreted to mean that if a stack 
contains three bundles, then the middle and top bundles must be secured 
by tiedowns in accordance with the provisions of Sec. Sec.  393.100 
through 393.114. If a stack contains more than three bundles, then one 
of the middle bundles and the top bundle must be secured by tiedown 
devices in accordance with the provision of Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 
393.114. The maximum height for the middle bundle that is secured must 
not exceed 6 feet above the deck of the trailer. Otherwise, the second 
bundle from the bottom of the stack must be secured in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  393.100 through 393.114. However, FMCSA does not agree with 
ATA's argument about the need for changing the terminology in this 
provision from ``tier'' to ``stack.'' The Agency does not believe the 
continued use of the term ``tier'' has caused problems to date and 
points out that the petitioner has not identified any such occurrences.

V. CCMTA Concerns About the Relationship Between the Performance 
Criteria and Working Load Limits

A. Summary of CCMTA Concerns

    CCMTA believes cargo securement devices and systems should 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 when the devices or systems are subjected to the forces 
generated by the deceleration and accelerations provided in the 
performance criteria. CCMTA argues the requirement that the aggregate 
working load limit be at least one-half times the weight of the article 
being secured does not ensure compliance with the prohibition against 
exceeding the working load limit when the performance criteria (0.8 g 
deceleration in the forward direction, 0.5 g in the rearward and 
lateral directions) are applied. To correct this discrepancy, CCMTA 
believes the working load limit formula needs to be adjusted to 
increase cargo restraining capacity. A copy of CCMTA's comments to the 
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance concerning FMCSA's requirements is 
included in the docket for this rulemaking.

B. FMCSA Response to CCMTA

    FMCSA shares CCMTA's concerns about safety but the Agency does not 
believe, given the limited amount cargo securement-related crash data 
available, there is a need to establish more stringent requirements 
than the Agency adopted on September 27, 2002. The Agency believes 
cargo securement systems should be designed, installed, and maintained 
to ensure that the maximum forces acting on these devices and systems 
do not exceed the working load limit of the tiedowns, but only under 
normal operating conditions. This is because working load limit is 
defined in Sec.  393.5 as the maximum load that may be applied to a 
component of a cargo securement system during normal service. The 
performance criteria of Sec.  393.102(a) do not represent normal 
service or operating conditions. Specifically, 0.8 g deceleration in 
the forward direction is not a routine force that commercial motor 
vehicles are subjected to on a regular basis. The same may be said of 
0.5 g acceleration in a lateral direction. The preamble to the final 
rule stated:

    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, with 
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 rollover 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.

    FMCSA also considered the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's (NHTSA) report ``An In-Service Evaluation of the 
Reliability, Maintainability, and Durability of Antilock Braking 
Systems (ABS) for Heavy Truck Tractors,'' DOT HS 807 846, March 1992, 
which provides data concerning routine brake application pressures and 
the resulting forces. NHTSA used on-board electronic data monitors/
recorders installed on 216 vehicles, 200 ABS equipped truck tractors, 
and 16 control vehicles. The data were accumulated over nearly 600,000 
hours and 18 million miles of tractor operation. More than 13 million 
brake applications occurred during that time period, at all times of 
the year and during all types of weather. Brake pressures of 15 pounds 
per square inch (psi) or less (light braking) accounted for 
approximately 84 percent of the total braking time recorded. An 
additional 10 percent of brake applications were between 15 and 20 psi 
and almost all the remaining brake applications were below 45 psi 
(moderate to hard braking). Only 0.02 percent of the total braking time 
was at pressures of 75 psi or greater.
    Eighty-five percent of the braking resulted in 0.19 g, or less, 
decelerations indicating light braking, and another 14.7 percent 
resulted in moderate-to-hard braking from 0.19 to 0.40 g. Deceleration 
levels above 0.40 g were only encountered in 0.11 percent of brake 
applications.
    Based on the Agency's review of its stated objectives in the 
preamble of the final rule and the NHTSA research data, FMCSA believes 
it would be inappropriate to require that the working load limits for 
the tiedowns be equal to or greater than the forces they would be 
subjected to, based on the performance criteria under Sec.  393.102(a). 
A requirement to ensure the working load is adequate for such 
performance limits would mean motor carriers must double the number of 
tiedowns currently required. The aggregate working load limit would 
have to be increased from \1/2\ times the weight of the articles being 
secured to one times the weight of the articles being secured. This is 
not necessary given that 99.7 percent of the braking measured during 
NHTSA's study resulted in 0.40 g or less

[[Page 33435]]

deceleration. The current requirement that the aggregate working load 
limit be equal to at least \1/2\ times the weight of the article 
ensures an appropriate level of safety because 0.40 g deceleration in 
the forward direction (from the NHTSA study), and about 0.25 g 
acceleration in the lateral direction appear to represent maximum 
deceleration and acceleration values under normal operating conditions. 
Generally, these values would not result in forces that exceed the 
working load limit for the tiedowns.
    Because the 0.8 g deceleration in the forward direction and the 0.5 
g accelerations in the lateral and rearward directions represent the 
most extreme operating conditions short of a crash, FMCSA believes the 
rules should require that the breaking strength of the cargo securement 
system must be sufficient to ensure the load remains in place up to 
these limits. Compliance with the prohibition against exceeding the 
working load limits would then be determined by using 0.4 g 
deceleration in the forward direction, 0.25 g in the lateral 
directions, and 0.5 g in the rearward direction--the rearward 
acceleration would remain unchanged because it results from the vehicle 
backing slowly into the loading dock. The Agency is revising Sec.  
393.102 to provide appropriate performance limits for use in 
determining compliance with the working load limit rules.

VI. Forest Resources Association Concerns About Sec.  393.116

A. Summary of Forest Resources Association Concerns

    The Forest Resources Association identified three issues of 
concern. First, the December 18, 2000, NPRM proposed that the aggregate 
working load limit for all tiedowns used to secure a stack of logs be 
one-sixth the weight of the logs. The paragraph under the proposed 
Sec.  393.116 was omitted from the final rule and they have requested 
that it be restored.
    Second, the Forest Resources Association requested that Sec.  
393.116 be amended to allow one tiedown per bunk, spaced equally 
between the standards, when transporting short length logs loaded 
lengthwise between the first two standards and between the last two 
standards. They believe the current wording requiring the use of two 
tiedowns is unnecessary given the bunks and standards.
    Third, the group indicated that the final rule omitted requirements 
for the transportation of longwood logs loaded lengthwise. They 
requested the agency restore the language originally proposed for the 
transportation of longwood. A copy of the Forest Resources 
Association's letter is included in the docket referenced at the 
beginning of this document.

B. FMCSA Response to the Forest Resources Association

    FMCSA believes the Forest Resources Association's requests are 
reasonable and appropriate. The NPRM (65 FR 79050, December 18, 2000) 
included proposed requirements for the transportation of longwood on 
frame vehicles [Sec.  393.122(d)(2) of the proposal] and longwood on 
flatbed vehicles [Sec.  393.122(f)(4) of the proposal]. Sections 
393.122(d)(3) and (f)(5) of the proposal would have provided that the 
aggregate working load limit for all tiedowns must be no less than one-
sixth the weight of the stack of logs, for logs transported lengthwise. 
When the final rule was drafted, paragraphs (d)(2) and (3), and (f)(4) 
and (5) were inadvertently omitted. FMCSA would correct those errors.
    With regard to allowing the use of one tiedown per bunk for short 
length logs loaded lengthwise between the first two standards and 
between the last two standards, FMCSA believes one tiedown is 
sufficient given the standards used to protect against lateral 
movement.

VII. Washington Contract Loggers Association and Washington Log 
Truckers Conference--Sec.  393.116

A. Summary of Washington Loggers and Log Truckers Concerns

    The Washington Contract Loggers Association and Washington Log 
Truckers Conference also expressed concerns about Sec.  393.116. These 
organizations are concerned that the new rules require tiedowns (as 
defined in Sec.  393.5) for the transportation of logs on frame 
vehicles and appear to prohibit the continued use of wrappers--a 
tiedown-type device that encircles the entire load, which is then 
placed onto the frame vehicle with standards to keep the bundled logs 
in place. The groups presented photographs of several vehicle 
configurations requesting guidance whether the vehicles were considered 
frame vehicles, and require the use of tiedowns instead of wrappers. A 
copy of the Washington Contract Loggers Association and Washington Log 
Truckers Conference correspondence with FMCSA is included in the docket 
referenced at the beginning of this document.

B. FMCSA Response to Washington Loggers and Log Truckers

    FMCSA has carefully reviewed the NPRM and the North American Cargo 
Securement Standard Model Regulations and determined Sec.  393.116(e) 
should be amended to allow the use of wrappers that encircle the entire 
load at locations along the load that provide effective securement. The 
use of wrappers is currently allowed for the transportation of logs on 
pole trailers [see Sec.  393.116(f)] and there is no discernible reason 
the use of wrappers and standards as a means of securing loads should 
be prohibited.

VIII. Timber Producers Association of Michigan and Wisconsin--Sec.  
393.116

A. Summary of Timber Producers Association Concerns

    The Timber Producers Association of Michigan and Wisconsin 
indicated the forest products industry has expressed an interest in 
using a crib-type system for transporting logs and pulpwood. Such 
systems are typically based, in whole or in part, upon a patented 
design ``Apparatus for Constraining the Position of Logs on a Truck 
Trailer'' (Patent No. U.S. 6,572,314 B2). These systems use stakes, 
bunks, a front-end structure, and a rear structure to restrain logs on 
trailers. The stakes prevent movement of the logs from side to side on 
the vehicle while the front-end and rear structures prevent movement of 
the logs from front to back on the vehicle. The intent of such systems 
is to enable motor carriers to transport logs without the use of 
wrapper chains or straps to secure the load, thereby expediting the 
loading and unloading process. Section 393.116 does not provide clear 
guidance whether these systems may be used without tiedowns.

B. FMCSA Response to Timber Producers Association

    The agency explained in a clarification dated December 30, 2003, 
that, generally, the use of a crib-type log securement system, without 
wrappers or tiedowns, would satisfy the commodity-specific requirements 
of Sec.  393.116, provided:
    (1) All vehicle components in the crib-type system are designed and 
built to withstand all anticipated operational forces without failure, 
accidental release or permanent deformation. Stakes or standards that 
are not permanently attached to the vehicle must be secured in a manner 
that prevents unintentional separation from the vehicle in transit [49 
CFR 393.116(b)(2)];
    (2) Logs are solidly packed with the outer bottom logs in contact 
with, and

[[Page 33436]]

resting solidly against the stakes, bunks, bolsters or standards [49 
CFR 393.116(c)(1)];
    (3) Each outside log on the side of a stack of logs must touch at 
least two stakes, bunks, bolsters or standards. If one end does not 
actually touch a stake, it must rest on other logs in a stable manner 
and must extend beyond the stake, bunk, bolster or standard [49 CFR 
393.116(c)(2)];
    (4) The maximum height of each stack of logs being transported is 
below the height of the stakes and the front- and rear-end structures; 
and,
    (5) The heights of the stacks are approximately equal so that logs 
in the top of one stack cannot shift longitudinally onto another stack 
on the vehicle.
    The Agency further explained that Sec.  393.116(b)(3), which 
requires that tiedowns be used in combination with the stabilization 
provided by stakes, bunks and bolsters to secure loads of logs, should 
not be considered applicable to the transportation of logs on crib-type 
vehicles under the conditions described above. However, Sec.  
393.116(c)(4), also concerning tiedowns, remains applicable for logs 
that are not held in place by contact with other logs or the stakes, 
bunks or standards. This means the decision whether tiedowns must be 
used is contingent upon how the logs are loaded onto the vehicle. If 
the tops of the stacks of logs are relatively level, then tiedowns 
would not be required when the logs are transported in crib-type 
vehicles. Uneven loads would require tiedowns on the taller stacks, and 
on logs that are not held in place by other logs, bunks or standards.
    FMCSA is proposing to revise Sec.  393.116(b)(3) to include an 
exception to the regulation requiring tiedowns to enable motor carriers 
to use crib-type trailers, without tiedowns, provided certain 
conditions are satisfied. The agency would also include a definition of 
``crib-type log trailer'' under Sec.  393.5. The term ``system'' is 
much more generic than ``log trailer,'' and the agency believes ``log 
trailer'' would ensure less confusion because the issue appears to 
involve only trailers, at this time.

IX. Miscellaneous Amendments--Manufacturing Standards for Tiedowns, 
Dressed Lumber, Metal Coils, Paper Rolls, Intermodal Containers and 
Flattened Cars

A. Manufacturing Standards for Tiedowns

    FMCSA would replace the current reference to the November 15, 1999, 
edition of the National Association of Chain Manufacturers' Welded 
Steel Chain Specifications with the April 26, 2003, edition to ensure 
the most up-to-date edition of the standard is referenced in the 
regulations. These specifications cover properties and grades of welded 
chain for industrial and commercial uses, produced to accepted 
commercial tolerances. This change would not affect the table of 
working load limits or cause any other substantive change to the 
requirements motor carriers must satisfy. The agency would amend Sec.  
393.7, Matter incorporated by reference, and Sec.  393.104(e) 
concerning manufacturing standards for tiedown assemblies.

B. Dressed Lumber and Similar Building Products

    FMCSA would add a new paragraph to Sec.  393.118(d) to include a 
fifth option for dressed lumber and building materials transported 
using more than one tier in a sided vehicle or container. The new 
paragraph would enable motor carriers to secure such loads in 
accordance with the general cargo securement provisions, Sec. Sec.  
393.100 through 393.114. Based on information from the Paper and Forest 
Industry Transportation Committee, the transportation of stacked units 
of dressed lumber and building products in sided vehicles or containers 
is common. However, the commodity-specific regulation does not include 
a provision to recognize this safe and effective option.

C. Metal Coils

    FMCSA would propose adding a definition of ``metal coil'' to 49 CFR 
393.5 to ensure uniform and consistent enforcement of Sec.  393.120. 
The agency has received numerous telephone calls and several letters 
asking whether certain items comprised largely of metal must be secured 
in accordance with Sec.  393.120. Although the previous cargo 
securement rules adopted in the 1970's included provisions applicable 
to the transportation of metal coils, there seemed to be a consensus 
the requirements were applicable to metal packaged as a roll. Questions 
concerning the applicability to metal packaged as a coil, spool, wind 
or wrap did not seem to arise. However, given the significant damage 
that would be caused if the load fell from the vehicle, there are 
clearly safety concerns about dense metal articles of cargo that are 
round.
    Therefore, the Agency would propose a definition that captures 
round metal articles that present a significant safety risk to the 
traveling public if they are not secured properly. This definition 
would ensure the applicability of the commodity-specific regulation for 
metal coils is applicable to such loads. The Agency would define a 
metal coil as an article of cargo comprised of mixtures, compounds or 
alloys commonly known as metal, metal foil, metal leaf, forged metal, 
stamped metal, metal wire or metal chain that are packaged as a roll, 
coil, spool, wind or wrap.

D. Paper Rolls

    FMCSA would revise Sec.  393.122(b)(4) to clarify the requirements 
concerning protection against tipping or falling sideways or forwards. 
The current wording has prompted requests for clarification because the 
requirements are not presented in a manner that makes clear the 
applicability of the banding, blocking, bracing or tiedown rules. 
Therefore, based on a review of the NPRM and model regulations, FMCSA 
would revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
     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.
     If the forwardmost roll(s) in a group of paper rolls has a 
width greater than 1.75 times its diameter, and it's not prevented from 
tipping or falling forward by vehicle structure or other cargo, then it 
must be prevented from tipping or falling forwards by banding it to 
other rolls, bracing, or tiedowns.
     If the forwardmost roll(s) in a group of paper rolls has a 
width equal to or less than 1.75 times its diameter, and it is 
restrained against forward movement by friction mat(s) alone, then 
banding, bracing or tiedowns are not required to prevent tipping or 
falling forward.
     If a paper roll or the forwardmost roll in a group of 
paper rolls has a width greater than 1.25 times its diameter, and it is 
not prevented from tipping or falling forwards by vehicle structure or 
other cargo, and it is not restrained against forward movement by 
friction mat(s) alone, then it must be prevented from tipping or 
falling by banding it to other rolls, bracing or tiedowns.
    FMCSA would also revise Sec.  393.122(d)(4) to explicitly prohibit 
the use of friction mats as the sole means of securing paper rolls on 
risers at the rear of a vehicle. A best-case scenario involves using a 
friction mat between the floor of the trailer and the riser, and a 
second friction mat between the riser and the paper roll. This means 
the motor carrier must rely on friction between the floor of the 
trailer and the

[[Page 33437]]

friction mat, friction between the friction mat and the bottom of the 
riser, friction between the top of the riser and the second friction 
mat, and friction between the mat and the bottom of the paper roll. 
Effectively securing a paper roll under these circumstances is 
difficult, if not impossible, because of the sometimes limited amount 
of surface area for the risers, and the coefficients of friction 
involved. FMCSA believes, based on information from the Paper and 
Forest Industry Transportation Committee, paper rolls on risers must be 
secured using blocking, bracing or banding the paper rolls together. To 
ensure the paper rolls on risers are properly secured the agency would 
amend Sec.  393.122(d)(4).

E. Intermodal Containers

    FMCSA would amend Sec.  393.126 to explicitly require that all 
lower corners of the intermodal container must be secured to the 
container chassis with securement devices or integral locking devices 
that cannot unintentionally become unfastened while the vehicle is in 
transit. The current regulatory language requires containers to be 
secured to the chassis but does not explicitly state that all lower 
corners must be secured. The amendment will ensure that all containers 
transported on chassis are properly secured.

F. Flattened or Crushed Cars

    FMCSA would revise the current blanket prohibition against the use 
of synthetic webbing so that webbing could be used as part of a cargo 
securement system provided no part of the webbing, regardless of 
whether edge protection or similar devices are used, comes into contact 
with the flattened or crushed cars. This action would be taken in 
response to concerns raised by motor carriers using wire rope or chain 
over the top of flattened or crushed cars, and synthetic webbing to 
connect the ends of the wire rope or chain to the anchor points on the 
transport vehicle. There is no readily apparent reason to believe this 
method of securing flattened or crushed cars presents a safety problem. 
Therefore, the current blanket prohibition should be revised to provide 
more flexibility, while ensuring the same standard of safety.
    FMCSA would also make an editorial correction to Sec.  
393.132(c)(2)(i) concerning containment walls on vehicles used to 
transport flattened or crushed vehicles. Currently the paragraph in 
question provides an option for 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 (emphasis added) containment 
wall or comparable means. The agency is removing the ``no'' so that the 
rule clearly states the sidewall is only required to provide protection 
on the side of the vehicle for which it is installed.

X. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA has preliminarily determined this proposed action would not 
be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive 
Order 12866 or within the meaning of Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. This document was not reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We expect the proposed rule 
would have minimal costs, but the Agency has prepared a preliminary 
regulatory analysis and regulatory flexibility analysis. A copy of the 
preliminary analysis document is included in the docket referenced at 
the beginning of this notice.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    FMCSA has preliminarily determined this proposal would not impose 
an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532, et seq.), that would result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. The agency has preliminarily determined this proposed rulemaking 
would not be an economically significant rule and would not concern an 
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately 
affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA has preliminarily determined this proposed rule would not 
effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking 
implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FMCSA has 
preliminarily determined this proposed rulemaking would not have a 
substantial direct effect on States, nor would it limit the policy-
making discretion of the States. Nothing in this document would preempt 
any State law or regulation.

[[Page 33438]]

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 proposed rulemaking would not contain a collection of 
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution or Use. We have determined preliminarily this 
proposal would not be a ``significant energy action'' under that order 
because it would not be economically significant and would not be 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution 
or use of energy. The proposed rule would merely make minor amendments 
and editorial corrections to FMCSA's September 27, 2002, final rule 
establishing new regulations concerning protection against shifting and 
falling cargo for CMVs operated in interstate commerce. The proposed 
action has no effect on the supply or use of energy, nor do we believe 
it will cause a shortage of drivers qualified to distribute energy, 
such as gasoline, fuel oil or other fuels.

    Issued on: May 26, 2005.
Annette M. Sandberg,
Administrator.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.
    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA would amend title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations, chapter III, as follows:

PART 393--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914; 
49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73.

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


Sec.  393.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Crib-type log trailer means a trailer equipped with stakes, bunks, 
a front-end structure, and a rear structure to restrain logs. The 
stakes prevent movement of the logs from side to side on the vehicle 
while the front-end and rear structures prevent movement of the logs 
from front to back on the vehicle.
* * * * *
    Metal coil means an article of cargo comprised of elements, 
mixtures, compounds, or alloys commonly known as metal, metal foil, 
metal leaf, forged metal, stamped metal, metal wire, or metal chain 
that are packaged as a roll, coil, spool, wind, or wrap.
* * * * *


Sec.  393.7  [Amended]

    3. Amend Sec.  393.7(b)(3) by revising ``November 15, 1999'' to 
read ``April 26, 2003.''
    4. Amend Sec.  393.102 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read 
as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (c) Prohibition on exceeding breaking strength and working load 
limit ratings. (1) Breaking strength. 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 
manufacturer's breaking strength rating under the conditions listed in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (2) Working load limits. Cargo securement devices and systems must 
be designed, installed, and maintained to ensure that the forces acting 
on the devices or systems under normal operating conditions do not 
exceed the working load limit for the devices. For the purposes of this 
paragraph, normal operating conditions means a deceleration up to 0.4 g 
in the forward direction, 0.5 g acceleration in the rearward direction, 
and 0.25 g acceleration in the lateral direction.
    (d) Equivalent means of securement. The means of securing articles 
cargo are considered to meet the performance requirements of this 
section if the cargo is--
    (1) Immobilized; or
    (2) Fills a sided vehicle that has walls of adequate strength, and 
each article of cargo within the vehicle is in contact with, or 
sufficiently close to a wall or other articles, so that it cannot shift 
or tip if those articles are also unable to shift or tip; or
    (3) Secured in accordance with the applicable requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  393.104 through 393.136.
    5. Amend Sec.  393.104 by removing paragraph (f)(4) and 
redesignating paragraph (f)(5) as (f)(4), revising ``November 15, 
1999'' to read ``April 26, 2003'' after the publication title 
``National Association of Chain Manufacturers' Welded Steel Chain 
Specifications'' in the table in paragraph (e); and by revising 
paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Prohibition on the use of damaged securement devices. All 
tiedowns, cargo securement systems, parts and components used to secure 
cargo must be in proper working order when used to perform that 
function with no damaged or weakened components, such as but not 
limited to, cracks or cuts that will adversely affect their performance 
for cargo securement purposes, including reducing the working load 
limit.
    (c) Vehicle structures and anchor points. Vehicle structures, 
floors, walls, decks, tiedown anchor points, headerboards, bulkheads, 
stakes, posts, and associated mounting pockets used to contain or 
secure articles of cargo must be strong enough to meet the performance 
criteria of Sec.  393.102, with no damaged or weakened components, such 
as, but not limited to, cracks or cuts that will adversely effect their 
performance for cargo securement purposes, including reducing the 
working load limit.
* * * * *
    6. Amend Sec.  393.106 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read 
as follows:


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

    (a) Applicability. The rules in this section are applicable to the 
transportation of all types of articles of cargo, except commodities in 
bulk that lack structure or fixed shape (e.g., liquids, gases, grain, 
liquid concrete, sand, gravel, aggregates) and are

[[Page 33439]]

transported in a tank, hopper, box, or similar device that forms part 
of the structure of a commercial motor vehicle. The rules in this 
section apply to the cargo types covered by the commodity-specific 
rules of Sec.  393.116 through Sec.  393.136. The commodity-specific 
rules take precedence over the general requirements of this section 
when additional requirements are given for a commodity listed in those 
sections.
* * * * *
    (d) Aggregate working load limit for tiedowns. The aggregate 
working load limit of tiedowns used to secure an article or group of 
articles against movement must be at least one-half times the weight of 
the article or group of articles. The aggregate working load limit is 
the sum of:
    (1) One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that goes from 
an anchor point on the vehicle to an attachment point on an article of 
cargo; and
    (2) The working load limit for each tiedown that goes from an 
anchor point on the vehicle, through, over or around the cargo and then 
attaches to another anchor point on the vehicle.
    7. Revise the title of Sec.  393.108 to read as follows:


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

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


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

    (a) When tiedowns are used as part of a cargo securement system, 
the minimum number of tiedowns required to secure an article or group 
of articles against movement depends on the length of the article(s) 
being secured, and the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section. These requirements are in addition to the rules under Sec.  
393.106.
* * * * *
    (c) If an individual article is blocked, braced, or immobilized to 
prevent movement in the forward direction by a headerboard, bulkhead, 
other articles which are adequately secured or by an appropriate 
blocking or immobilization method