Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Protection Against Shifting and Falling Cargo, 35819-35834 [06-5236]

Agencies

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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



[[Page 35819]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393

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


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends its September 27, 2002, final rule concerning 
protection against shifting and falling cargo for commercial motor 
vehicles (CMVs) operated in interstate commerce in response to 
petitions for rulemaking from the American Trucking Association (ATA), 
Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), Georgia-Pacific 
Corporation (Georgia-Pacific) and Weyerhaeuser, and in response to 
issues raised by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators 
(CCMTA), the Forest Resources Association, Inc. (FRA), the Washington 
Contract Loggers Association and the Washington Log Truckers Conference 
(WCLA/WLTC), and the Timber Producers Association of Michigan and 
Wisconsin (TPA). The amendments make the final rule more consistent 
with the December 18, 2000, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to 
adopt the North American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulations. 
This final rule also includes several editorial revisions to the 2002 
final rule.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to 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.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is organized as follows:

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

I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

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

[[Page 35820]]

II. Background

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

III. Discussion of Comments to the NPRM

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

[[Page 35821]]

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

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

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

[[Page 35822]]

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

[[Page 35823]]

incorporated by reference under Sec.  393.104. The Agency notes that 
Kinedyne provides both working load limit and breaking strength for 
their tiedown products on its website. In most instances, the breaking 
strength would only be used by technical personnel responsible for 
designing a securement system. These individuals would not have 
difficulty looking up the information and applying it in an appropriate 
manner. However, from a practical standpoint, it is unlikely that 
drivers and roadside enforcement personnel would attempt to assess 
compliance with the performance criteria under Sec.  393.102. 
Generally, motor carriers are not required to conduct testing of cargo 
securement systems to determine compliance with the performance 
requirements of Sec.  393.102(a) and/or Sec.  393.102(c), and Sec.  
393.102 explicitly states that cargo that is immobilized or secured in 
accordance with general rules regarding cargo securement systems, or 
the commodity-specific rules, is considered to meet the performance 
criteria.
    FMCSA agrees with the comment by Mr. Takacs that the working load 
limit is based on the breaking strength of a cargo securement device. 
Mr. Takacs expressed concern that references to a cargo securement 
product's breaking strength will be confusing or misinterpreted because 
persons may not be aware that the breaking strength is a value for new 
products, and does not take into consideration the effects of aging, 
cuts, and wear. As noted above, FMCSA does not believe that this 
language will be confusing, and the Agency notes that Sec.  393.104(c) 
states that ``vehicle structures, floors, walls, decks, tiedown anchor 
points, headerboards, bulkheads, stakes, posts, and associated mounting 
pockets used to contain or secure articles of cargo must be strong 
enough to meet the performance criteria of Sec.  393.102, with no 
damaged or weakened components such as, but not limited to, cracks or 
cuts that will adversely affect their performance for cargo securement 
purposes, including reducing the working load limit.'' As such, any 
components of a cargo securement system exhibiting these defects must 
be removed from service.
    While numerous commenters opposed FMCSA's proposed amendments to 
Sec.  393.102 to distinguish between the performance requirements for 
cargo securement systems using both working load limit (under 
``normal'' operating conditions) and breaking strength (under the most 
extreme operating conditions short of a crash), the Agency continues to 
believe that these amendments (1) are needed to resolve an existing 
internal inconsistency in the regulatory language, and (2) do not 
result in a reduced level of safety with respect to cargo securement 
systems. Working load limit is defined in Sec.  393.5 as the maximum 
load that may be applied to a component of a cargo securement system 
during normal service (emphasis added). However, Sec.  393.102(c) 
currently requires that cargo securement devices and systems be 
designed, installed, and maintained to ensure that the maximum forces 
acting on the devices or systems do not exceed the working load limit 
for the devices under a (1) 0.8 g deceleration in the forward 
direction, (2) 0.5 acceleration in the rearward direction, and (3) 0.5 
acceleration in the lateral direction, all applied separately. FMCSA 
continues to believe that 0.8 g deceleration in the forward direction 
and 0.5 g acceleration in the lateral direction do not represent 
``normal'' operating conditions. The conditions described above more 
closely align with the most extreme operating conditions a vehicle may 
experience short of a crash, and real-world studies have shown these 
conditions occur infrequently. The discussion that follows presents the 
Agency's rationale for determining that the conditions listed above do 
not represent ``normal'' operating conditions.
    The North American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulation is 
based on work conducted under the North American Load Security Research 
Project, initiated in the early 1990s to develop an understanding of 
the mechanics of cargo securement on heavy trucks. The research was 
intended to provide a sound technical basis for development of the 
Model Regulations. Tests were conducted to examine the fundamental 
issues of anchor points, tiedowns, blocking and friction, and issues 
related to securement of dressed lumber, large metal coils, concrete 
pipe, intermodal containers, and other commodities.
    In an effort to address the concerns raised by commenters regarding 
the distinction between ``normal'' operating conditions and the most 
extreme operating conditions short of a crash, FMCSA revisited the 
findings presented in a Summary Report that was prepared at the 
conclusion of the Load Security Research Project described above. 
Section 2 of the Summary Report, Definition of Terms, defines ``Normal 
Driving'' as ``the maximum acceleration that a driver might expect from 
hard braking or a turning maneuver (emphasis added).'' The Summary 
Report also noted that an understanding of the performance of vehicles 
within the highway system was necessary to be able to place the 
research findings in context, and provided the following discussion:

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

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

[[Page 35824]]

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

[[Page 35825]]

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

[[Page 35826]]

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

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

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

[[Page 35827]]

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

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

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

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

    FMCSA acknowledges there has been confusion in recent years 
regarding the definitions of ``direct'' and ``indirect'' tiedowns, and 
regarding the contribution of each toward the calculation of the 
aggregate WLL of a cargo securement system. During the notice-and-
comment rulemaking process, FMCSA proposed certain requirements in the 
2000 NPRM that would have necessitated the distinction between what 
were referred to as ``direct tiedowns'' and ``indirect tiedowns.'' 
After reviewing the docket comments, the Agency attempted to adopt a 
more straightforward approach in the 2002 final rule for calculating 
the aggregate WLL, while preserving the potential safety benefits of 
making the distinction between the two types of tiedowns. While the 
Agency believes that the language adopted in the 2002 final rule was 
easier to understand than that proposed in the 2000 NPRM, it was 
clear--based on numerous telephone inquiries from FMCSA field offices, 
State enforcement agencies, and industry groups--that the intent of 
Sec.  393.106(d) was still not easily understood. The 2005 NRPM 
attempted to amend the language to provide an effective approach for 
adding working load limits for individual tiedowns in a cargo 
securement system that, at the same time, yields the same answer as the 
regulatory language in the 2002 final rule. It is important to note 
that throughout each iteration of the cargo securement rulemaking, it 
has been the intent of the Agency to maintain consistency with the 
original Draft Model Regulation.
    Specifically, the 2005 NPRM proposed to simplify the formula for 
determining the aggregate WLL for tiedowns to be the sum of (1) one-
half the working load limit of each tiedown that goes from an anchor 
point on the vehicle to an attachment point on an article of cargo, and 
(2) the working load limit for each tiedown that goes from an anchor 
point on the vehicle, through, over or around the cargo and then 
attaches to another anchor point on the vehicle.
    However, CCMTA contends that the above proposal would reduce the 
contribution of direct tiedowns to the determination of aggregate WLL 
by 50 percent. CCMTA contends that