Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Protection Against Shifting or Falling Cargo |
---|
|
Rodney E. Slater
Federal Highway Administration
6 July 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-16069] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: July 6, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 49 CFR Part 393 [FHWA Docket No. MC-93-21] RIN 2125-AD18 Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Protection Against Shifting or Falling Cargo AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending the cargo securement requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to adopt the use of working load limits in specifying the minimum strength of cargo securement devices. The amendment requires that the aggregate working load limit of the tiedown assemblies used to secure an article against movement in any direction be at least \1/2\ times the weight of the article secured. In addition, a table of working load limits is being included in the FMCSRs to provide motor carriers with a means of determining the number of tiedown assemblies required. It is the intent of this final rule to make the tiedown requirements easier to understand, use, and enforce. This action is in response to a petition from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). DATES: Effective August 5, 1994. The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in Sec. 393.102(b) of this final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 5, 1994. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, HCS-10, (202) 366-2981; or Mr. Charles E. Medalen, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-20, (202) 366-1354, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D. C. 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except legal Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 1990, the CVSA petitioned the FHWA to change the criterion for cargo tiedown assemblies from ``static breaking strength'' to ``working load limit.'' The CVSA contends the static breaking strength of a tiedown assembly is a rating that incorporates no safety factor, though the rule itself does include such a factor. The CVSA also believes the use of working load limits will make the tiedown regulations easier to understand, use, and enforce. The petitioner asserts that working load limit is the strength criterion commonly used by the chain, cordage, wire rope, and web sling industries and that the term is widely known in the trucking industry. The use of the working load limits would thus promote direct correlation between the rule and the capabilities labeled on or indicated by load securement equipment. The CVSA proposed that the first sentence of Sec. 393.102(b) be amended to read ``Except for integral securement devices * * * the aggregate working load limit of the tiedown assemblies used to secure an article against movement in any direction must be at least \1/2\ times the weight of that article.'' The CVSA also proposed that chain, webbing, wire rope, and cordage meet certain manufacturing specifications or standards. On September 17, 1993, the FHWA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (58 FR 48624) to adopt the use of working load limits and the incorporation by reference of chain, webbing, wire rope, and cordage manufacturing standards. Although the CVSA petition did not discuss standards for steel strapping, the FHWA proposed that Federal Specification No. A-A-880, Strapping, Steel Flat and Seals (May 13, 1980), be incorporated by reference because Sec. 393.102 had referenced Federal Specification No. QQ-S-781 which has been cancelled. The FHWA believed it was necessary to retain specific requirements for steel strapping and that Federal Specification No. A-A-880 was an appropriate replacement. The FHWA also proposed to create a new section, Sec. 393.7, Matter incorporated by reference, to provide the language of incorporation required by 1 CFR 51, as well as to include information on the availability of documents incorporated by reference. Discussion of Comments The FHWA received 23 comments to the NPRM. Several commenters provided more than one docket submission. The commenters were: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates); American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA); Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP); Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA); Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles (Connecticut); Cooper Tools; The Cordage Institute; The Crosby Group, Inc.; Great American Lines, Inc.; Illinois Department of Transportation (Illinois); Kinedyne Corporation; Maine State Police (Maine); The National Industrial Transportation League; New York Department of Transportation (New York); Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA); United States Representative Jack Quinn, 30th District, New York; Steel Service Center Institute; Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA); and Mrs. Richard B. Wilson. Use of Working Load Limits The commenters were generally in favor of amending Sec. 393.102(b) to incorporate the use of working load limits. The CHP and Great American Lines were both opposed to the use of working load limits. The CHP stated: [Static breaking strength (SBS)] is a readily determined physical parameter. Conversely, the WLL, according to the NPRM is generally between \1/4\ and \1/3\ of the static breaking strength of the tiedown. The CHP is not aware of any regulation which defines WLL. Instead, each manufacturer makes this determination for its own products. In many cases this may be based on industry standard practice, but since these practices are voluntary, no means is available to assure conformance. In effect, the FHWA is abdicating its responsibility to determine proper tiedown standards by allowing manufacturers to determine the WLL of their devices. It is the opinion of the CHP that this parameter is far too critical to leave to a manufacturer's discretion. Unless the WLL for each type of binder is defined in the regulation, there will always be some ambiguity as to the strength of the device. Further, from an enforcement perspective, the WLL method could result in a hardship since WLL, based only on a factor determined by each manufacturer, is a much harder concept for enforcement/prosecution personnel to explain in court as opposed to the SBS, a parameter which is nearly intuitively obvious. Variations from manufacturer to manufacturer will further complicate the issue. Great American Lines, Inc., stated: [T]he current regulations as written in [Sec. ]393.102 [of the] FMCS[Rs] are more than sufficient. Properly trained drivers using the securement as specified in the current regulations will have no problem keeping the cargo on the trailer. Education is the key, not change. The changes as proposed can only confuse the drivers, carriers and enforcement officers and cause an extremely dangerous situation * * *. Changing to the C.V.S.A. guidelines can serve no good purpose and will confuse the people that it is meant to regulate. In the end the public will suffer. Don't change something that is working when properly applied. In its second docket submission, Great American Lines, Inc., stated that ``Neither the reasons presented in the text of the proposal nor at the congressional hearings preceding this notice of proposed rulemaking establish a problem with the regulation that warrant the changes being proposed.'' The TTMA's position on the issue was contingent upon the FHWA's clarification of the term ``tiedown assemblies.'' The TTMA stated: ``If the term `tiedown assemblies,' as used in [Sec. ]393.102(b) includes trailer anchor points, then we object to changing `breaking strength' to `working load limit.''' It is true, as the CHP noted, that working load limits are based on each manufacturer's determination. That is also true for static breaking strength, however, and neither value can be tested during roadside enforcement. The FHWA notes that the terms ``static breaking strength'' and ``working load limit'' are defined in numerous technical dictionaries, manuals, and reference books. While each manufacturer makes a determination of the working load limits of its own products, the documents incorporated by reference, combined with certain other requirements in Sec. 393.102, eliminate the risk of voluntary or purely subjective standards. By incorporating by reference certain manufacturing standards, this rulemaking establishes specific minimum strength requirements for five categories of securement devices: steel strapping, chains, wire rope, cordage, and synthetic webbing. The FHWA does not believe that tiedown manufacturers will produce devices which fail to meet these minimum strength requirements. For those cases in which the manufacturing standards do not provide specific working load limits (e.g., the document lists breaking strength or a working load limit range), the final rule establishes the procedure for determining this information. In addition, the final rule includes a table of working load limits for some of the most commonly used types and sizes of tiedowns. The rule requires that the working load limits listed in the table be used when the tiedown material is not marked with its working load limit. The values listed in the table are based on the industry standards referenced in Sec. 393.102. Therefore, the uncertainty about the strength of a tiedown is limited to tiedowns which do not meet the manufacturing standards, and the rule prohibits the use of such tiedowns. As for the CHP's comments about possible difficulties in the enforcement of a working load limit requirement, it is clear that the CVSA, whose membership includes State officials charged with enforcement, considered this issue before petitioning the FHWA. Section 393.102 specifies the relationship between the strength rating of the tiedown devices and the weight of the article being secured. If the strength rating and weight of the article are known, and the relationship between the two is clearly stated in Sec. 393.102, the inspecting official should not have to provide an engineering discussion or justification of the strength rating requirement. Furthermore, as the CVSA indicated in its petition, and as several tiedown manufacturers, manufacturers' associations, and enforcement agencies have stated in their comments in response to the NPRM, a working load limit requirement would be easier to understand, use, and enforce because tiedown manufacturers prefer to label their products with the working load limit as opposed to the static breaking strength. The manufacturers believe the use of working load limits would decrease the likelihood of accidental misuse or overloading of the tiedowns. The FHWA agrees with Great American Lines' emphasis on training and education. However, the number of accidents involving inadequately secured cargo suggests that some motor carriers do not understand or observe the current regulations. It must be noted that static breaking strength has been in use for approximately 20 years. During this time, education and training have played a role in reducing the number of cargo securement-related accidents to a relatively low level. The final rule is intended to make the cargo securement regulations easier to understand, use, and enforce in order to further reduce the incidence of cargo securement-related accidents. The TTMA asked whether the term ``tiedown assemblies'' in the current regulations includes trailer anchor points. The answer is technically no, but the anchor points have to meet the same standard. Section 393.102(d) requires that the hook, bolt, weld, or other connections by which a tiedown assembly is attached to a vehicle, and the mounting place and means of mounting the connector, be at least as strong as the tiedown assembly. The final rule does not reference any manufacturing standards or recommended practices for trailer anchor points nor does it require trailer manufacturers to change their current practices regarding anchor points. However, the FHWA encourages trailer manufacturers to provide information to motor carriers and enforcement officials about the strength of anchor points to improve their knowledge of the cargo restraint capabilities of anchor points. Incorporation by Reference and the Table of Working Load Limits Generally, the commenters supported the inclusion of the table of working load limits in Sec. 393.102 and the incorporation by reference of certain industry standards. Several commenters, however, recommended additions and/or corrections to the table. Commenting in opposition to the incorporation by reference of industry standards, New York stated that ``[a]doption by reference will cause confusion and make conformance by the industry difficult and also require the industry and enforcement personnel to use numerous documents in determining appropriate securement methodologies. The regulations should be self-contained and clear in their wording.'' Some commenters questioned the need for including requirements for steel strapping. Maine, for example, stated: ``While strapping may be used to secure materials to pallets, it is seldom used to hold freight to a vehicle. Since the material is not reused, it has little direct vehicle application.'' However, Connecticut argued that ``[e]nforcement of Section 393.102 would be greatly enhanced if most common dimensions and strengths of steel strapping were added to the tables of working load limits.'' The CVSA stated: The steel strap manufacturers have recently formed an association which is presently developing recommendations on their products. Steel strapping is typically not used as the primary load securement device. Normally the strapping will hold the cargo in bundles or to pallets while other devices are used to secure those bundles and pallets to the transporting vehicle. Because steel strapping is not often used as a direct tiedown device and since the strap manufacturers are now working through their association to develop strength and use guidelines, we recommend that this material not be included in the proposed rule at this time. The new industry standards may well supersede the federal specification referenced in the docket. Delaying action at this time could well reduce future confusion over regulatory requirements for steel strapping. As for the incorporation by reference of rope standards, the Cordage Institute stated that ``[s]isal and nylon ropes are not recommended [for cargo securement applications] and references to their standards [Sisal Rope Specifications (SRS-1), Nylon Rope Specifications (NRS-1), and Double Braided Nylon Rope Specifications (C1)] should be deleted.'' The Cordage Institute did not provide any information to support this recommendation and no other commenters addressed this subject. It was recommended that the new standards for polypropylene fiber rope (PPRS-2, revised August 1992) and polyester fiber rope (PETRS-2, revised January 1993) be used in place of P/PRS-1, May 1979 and PRS-1, May 1979, respectively. The Cordage Institute also provided clarification of its recommendations on calculating working load limit values. Its policy on working load limit values has changed from using a specific design factor for each size of cordage/rope to a design factor range. This approach leaves the selection of a specific value to the particular applications for which the cordage will be used. For cargo securement applications involving polypropylene and polyester fiber ropes, the Cordage Institute recommended a design factor of 6-- the working load limit would be equal to \1/6\ of the minimum breaking strengths listed in PPRS-2 and PETRS-2. The Cordage Institute recommended that the working load limits for manila rope be \1/2\ that of the polypropylene fiber rope of the same diameter. Working load limit values were also recommended for ``California Truck Rope''--rope meeting the requirements of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Sec. 1303(e). The Cordage Institute also suggested that the FHWA include California's Sec. 1303(e) requirements for synthetic fiber rope (e.g., rope shall be treated for ultraviolet resistance, rope must have an orange surface marker in each rope strand, prohibition on the use of solid orange rope, etc.). In response to those commenters opposed to the incorporation by reference of certain manufacturing standards, the FHWA notes that the intent of this process is to reduce the volume of material published in the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations by referencing relevant material published by the private sector. The legal effect of incorporation by reference is that the material is treated as if it were published in the Federal Register. This material, like any other properly issued regulation, has the force and effect of law. Motor carriers do not need to obtain copies of all of the materials which are incorporated by reference but only those that are relevant to their specific circumstances (e.g., carriers relying solely upon steel chains do not need to obtain copies of standards for steel strapping, cordage, webbing, or wire rope). Although there may be advantages to printing certain texts from private sector documents in the regulations, the FHWA does not intend Sec. 393.102 to be a technical reference on manufacturing standards. Both the volume and complexity of the information covered in the referenced documents is too great to be effectively presented in the FMCSRs. As for the specific documents to be incorporated by reference, the final rule differs from the NPRM in that it does not refer to Federal Specification No. A-A-880, Strapping, Steel Flat and Seals (May 13, 1980). Instead, the final rule incorporates American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3953-91, Standard Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals. As the CVSA noted in its comments, steel strap manufacturers, working in conjunction with the ASTM, are currently developing recommendations or guidelines concerning the use of steel strapping in load securement. The FHWA has reviewed the preliminary strength and use guidelines that ASTM Subcommittee D10.14 provided to the CVSA concerning breaking strengths and working load limits for steel strapping or banding. A copy of the preliminary strength and use guidelines is included in the docket file. The working load limits are \1/4\ of the breaking strengths (the breaking strength multiplied by a design factor of \1/3\ and a ``joint efficiency'' of 0.75) listed in ASTM D3953-91. After a review of ASTM D3953-91, the FHWA has determined that the preliminary strength and use guidelines of ASTM Subcommittee D10.14 have merit and could, to some extent, be addressed in the final rule through the incorporation by reference of ASTM D3953-91. The FHWA has compared the requirements of Federal Specification No. A-A-880 with those of ASTM D3953-91 and determined that the ASTM standard specification would serve as a better reference for manufacturers and carriers to use in determining if certain sizes or grades of steel strapping are adequate for cargo securement applications. Although the ASTM subcommittee (D10.14) is developing new guidelines, most of its preliminary recommendations are based on ASTM D3953-91. Therefore, the FHWA believes that it is appropriate to incorporate by reference the ASTM standard specification at this time, and consider the ASTM strength and use guidelines for incorporation after they have been published. As for cordage specifications, the FHWA is incorporating by reference (1) CRS-1, Polyester/Polypropylene Composite Rope Specifications, Three- and Eight-Strand Standard Construction, May 1979, (2) PPRS-2, Polypropylene Fiber Rope, 3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions, revised August 1992, (3) PETRS-2, Polyester Fiber Rope, 3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions, revised January 1993, (4) NRS-1, Nylon Rope Specifications, Three- and Eight-Strand Standard Construction, May 1979, and (5) C1, Double Braided Nylon Rope Specifications, DBN-January 1984. The incorporation of CRS-1, NRS-1 and C1 is consistent with the NPRM and the inclusion of PPRS-2 and PETRS-2 is in response to the docket comments. The FHWA has reviewed the Cordage Institute's recommendation concerning the working load limits for manila rope (three-strand laid construction), and notes that the recommendation results in (1) an increase in the working load limit for rope with diameters of \3/16\ through \1/2\ inch and 2\1/2\ through 4 inches, and (2) a decrease in the working load limits for diameters of \9/16\ through 2\1/4\ inches. The increases in working load limits are generally between 1 and 5 percent for the 2\1/2\ through 4 inch diameter ropes. The percentage increases in the working load limits of \3/16\ through \1/2\-inch rope are much larger. However, the safety factors provided in MRS-1 for \3/16\ through \1/2\-inch rope were greater than those of the larger diameter ropes. The FHWA believes the working load limit recommendations of the Cordage Institute provide reasonable safety factors for manila rope. Accordingly, the FHWA is adopting these recommendations as part of the table of working load limits in the final rule. In light of the Cordage Institute's recommendations concerning manila rope working load limits, the FHWA does not believe that it is appropriate to incorporate by reference MRS-1. To do so would result in a contradiction between the working load limits contained in MRS-1 and the working load limits (for cargo securement applications) recommended by the Cordage Institute. The FHWA accepts the Cordage Institute's suggestion to delete the reference to sisal rope (SRS-1), but does not believe that excluding nylon rope specifications from the final rule is appropriate. The final rule is not intended to incorporate standards for all tiedown materials, but only the most commonly used. In that context, and in consideration of the relatively low working load limits for sisal rope the FHWA does not believe that including a specification for sisal rope is essential. The FHWA notes that the rule does not prohibit the use of sisal rope. As for the nylon rope specifications, the references remain as originally proposed. Although the agency cannot quantify the extent to which nylon rope is used, the working load limits for nylon rope are such that its usage in cargo securement applications is likely. The FHWA is not adopting the Cordage Institute's recommendation to include rope requirements similar to those used in the California Code of Regulations. With the exception of California's requirement for ultraviolet resistance, the FHWA considers this particular regulatory language unnecessarily design restrictive in that it would prohibit, without sufficient technical justification, certain synthetic rope and webbing based primarily on material and/or color, irrespective of its strength or safety for use in cargo securement. As for ultraviolet resistance requirements, the Cordage Institute did not provide, and the California regulations do not include, sufficient information to enable the FHWA to establish specific and objective regulatory language. The NPRM requested comments on the method used in determining the working load limit for wire rope which is not marked. Four commenters responded to this request. All supported the method described in the NPRM (i.e., \1/4\ of the nominal strength--the nominal strength multiplied by a design factor of \1/3\ and the ``termination efficiency,'' 0.75). Therefore, Sec. 393.102(b) includes this method for determining the working load limit of unmarked wire rope. Marking and Labeling of Tiedown Devices Several commenters responded to the FHWA's questions concerning the need for requiring the use of only those tiedown devices which are marked or labeled with the working load limit. For example, the CVSA stated: Manufacturers of tiedowns have indicated that they are willing to mark load securement devices with working load limit ratings. We believe having working load values marked on load securement devices is a significant aid to their proper use and we would like to see such markings universally required. We recognize that presently, much of the tiedown equipment in the field is either unmarked or not directly marked with working load limit. As it would be an extreme waste of resources and a huge financial burden on carriers to scrap today's inventory of products not marked with working load limit, we would recommend the requirement for marking working load limits be made effective at some future date, i.e., three to five years. Another way to handle this would be to grandfather the tiedown equipment already manufactured and being used by the motor carrier industry. New York believed the final rule should ``clearly state that unmarked cargo securement devices, steel strapping, chain, webbing, wire rope, etc. will not be allowed and will cause vehicles transporting materials with unmarked devices to be placed out-of- service. There is no way to effectively ensure the adequacy of unmarked devices.'' The OOIDA stated: Owner-operators frequently purchase tie-down hooks, chains, wire ropes, etc. at truck stops or other similar locations. Drivers need to be assured that the items purchased meet all applicable safety standards. Therefore, the Agency should take steps to require prominent displays on packaging that will ensure that the product meets safety requirements. Specific details on packaging as to working load limit are preferable to general statements that manufacturing standards are met. While the FHWA is aware of the need for carriers and enforcement officials to be able to identify the various cargo securement devices and the associated working load limits, the final rule does not include a requirement for marking and labeling of these devices. Such a requirement must take into account manufacturers' practices as well as the need for uniformity. The commenters did not provide any listings of current marking and labeling practices to assist the FHWA in determining appropriate regulatory language. The agency cannot estimate what percentage of tiedown equipment currently in use by motor carriers or stocked by manufacturers and retailers is unmarked or not directly marked with a working load limit. Although a general requirement for the use of marked and labeled equipment could be included in Sec. 393.102, the absence of specific and objective guidelines as to what constitutes an acceptable mark or label for each type of tiedown (i.e., chain, synthetic webbing, wire rope, steel strapping, cordage) would create enforcement difficulties. The FHWA encourages tiedown manufacturers to develop uniform systems of marking and labeling their products to assist motor carriers and enforcement officials in determining working load limits. Applicability of Cargo Securement Regulations to Shippers New York and the OOIDA expressed concern about the applicability of the cargo securement regulations to shippers. Citing the catastrophic results of accidents caused by inadequate securement of steel and aluminum products, New York believed the ``federal regulations should assign responsibility for proper cargo securement of steel and aluminum products to both the shipper and the carrier.'' The OOIDA stated: A large degree of responsibility for cargo securement lies squarely with the individual shipper. It is the shipper who selects and ultimately contracts with various motor carriers to transport their commodities. Each shipper has an obligation to scrutinize every prospective carrier and engage only those capable of providing the proper equipment and expertise necessary to safely haul their specific product. The FHWA acknowledges these concerns. Whatever the merits of these arguments, however, the FHWA has no statutory authority to regulate shippers of steel and aluminum products. Future Rulemakings on Cargo Securement Several commenters discussed the need for amending or clarifying numerous provisions of the cargo securement regulations as well as the need for research. The Illinois Department of Transportation wrote: Illinois is concerned that application of the proposed aggregate working load limit formula may not provide adequate margins of safety. What may be considered adequate securement for general freight may not be adequate for other loads. The regulations identify unique securement standards for intermodal containers. Coils and metal articles also have special securement requirements. Cargo weight and load configuration both need to be factored into the performance standards expected from tiedown systems * * *. The potential gravity and actual severity of incidents involving the transportation of metal coils, their frequency of occurrence and the high number of apparent violations of the securement regulations give credibility to the need to reevaluate the securement regulations. These concerns have led Illinois to sponsor a university research project to examine the unique properties of metal coil cargo securement * * *. The project will take 15 months and focus upon five areas: (1) Review and evaluate current systems, (2) examine the volume of coils transported and the types of securement systems in use in Illinois, (3) evaluate the knowledge of persons using or enforcing the securement regulations, (4) perform engineering dynamic studies to evaluate securement systems, and (5) recommend improvements in securement systems and/or educational efforts for persons involved in both the transportation and enforcement areas of the regulations. Upon its completion, the results and conclusion of this project will be made available to FHWA and other parties interested in transportation safety. The research project will examine the dynamic forces affecting securement systems during normal driving and during less than ideal transportation conditions such as hard braking, emergency maneuvers or sharp radius turns. Illinois' data indicates loss of cargo commonly occurs during these less than ideal conditions. The FHWA welcomes efforts by academia, tiedown and vehicle manufacturers, motor carriers, and others conducting research or studies directed at reducing the incidence of cargo securement-related accidents. Currently the FHWA is working with the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, State and Provincial agencies responsible for motor carrier safety activities, and U.S. and Canadian industry groups to conduct a comprehensive research program on cargo securement. A report identifying certain cargo securement issues needing research and describing a program to address them was published by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation in November 1993. A copy of the report entitled ``A Proposal for Research to Provide a Technical Basis for a Revised National Standard on Load Security for Heavy Trucks'' is included in the docket file. It is expected that this research, along with efforts such as those described by Illinois, will contribute greatly toward evaluating current cargo securement regulations and industry practices and providing recommendations for specific actions needed to improve safety. This final rule is not intended to preclude consideration of future rulemakings on cargo securement. Discussion of Final Rule The FHWA is amending Sec. 393.102(b) to require that the aggregate working load limit of the tiedown assemblies used to secure an article against movement in any direction be at least \1/2\ the weight of the article secured. Steel strapping, chain, synthetic webbing, wire rope, and cordage used must meet certain manufacturing or performance standards which are incorporated by reference. The incorporation of these standards is intended to specify minimum requirements for tiedowns and not to restrict the use of tiedowns which exceed the criteria contained therein. Section 393.7, which was proposed in its entirety in the NPRM, was created by the final rule entitled ``Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Warning Devices for Stopped Vehicles'' (RIN 2125- AD17; FHWA Docket No. MC-93-19), which is published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The FHWA is amending Sec. 393.7, Matter incorporated by reference, to provide the language of incorporation required by 1 CFR 51 and to provide information on the availability of the incorporated documents. After a review of the responses to the September 17, 1993, NPRM and a determination that the incorporation by reference was necessary for the final rule, the FHWA submitted the documents listed in Sec. 393.102(b)(1) to (b)(5) to the Director of the Federal Register for approval in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 51. The final rule does not require tiedowns to be marked or labeled. However, manufacturers of tiedowns and associated equipment are encouraged to provide motor carriers and enforcement officials with a means to easily determine the working load limits of their products. For those cases in which the tiedown manufacturing standards (incorporated by reference into the final rule) include guidelines for marking and labeling, adherence to those guidelines is encouraged, but is not mandated. Section 393.102(b) is amended to include a table of working load limits for common types and sizes of tiedown devices. The working load limits listed in the table are to be used when the tiedown material is not marked by the manufacturer with the working load limit. Tiedown materials marked by the manufacturer with working load limits which differ from the table, shall be considered to have a working load limit equal to the value for which they are marked. With regard to the working load limits for cordage, the table lists values for manila, polypropylene, polyester, and nylon cordage. For those cases in which the a synthetic rope does not have a manufacturers' marking or label to enable motor carriers and enforcement officials to distinguish between polypropylene, polyester fiber ropes, polyester/polypropylene composite rope, or nylon rope, the working load limits of polypropylene fiber rope shall be used. Since polypropylene fiber rope generally has a lower working load limit than polyester and nylon ropes, this provision is important to ensure safety. The agency notes that the working load limits for nylon rope are based on the specific design factors in the nylon rope specifications, NRS-1 and C1. These design factors are between 9 and 12 for three- and eight-strand standard construction nylon rope and between 7 and 11 for double braided nylon rope. As a result, the working load limits shown in Sec. 393.102 for certain sizes of nylon rope are lower than that for polypropylene fiber rope. Considering the Cordage Institute's recommendation for a design factor of 6 for polypropylene fiber rope and polyester rope, the FHWA believes that the use of polypropylene fiber rope working load limits is appropriate in those cases in which the rope cannot be identified as nylon. The table of working load limits does not include information on polyester/ polypropylene composite rope because the working load limit values are generally very close, if not identical, to those of polypropylene fiber rope. In the case of steel strapping, wire rope, and cordage, the final rule includes a procedure for calculating the working load limits. The published industry standards for these materials use breaking strengths, nominal strengths, and working load limit ranges respectively. To ensure consistency in calculating the working load limits and an appropriate safety margin in determining the number of tiedown devices required, these procedures must be used when the working load limit is not provided by the manufacturer or when the manufacturer provides working load limit ranges for cargo securement applications. Ruelmaking Analysis and Notices Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This final rule amends the requirements for the strength ratings for cargo securement devices. The FHWA has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or significant within the meaning of the Department of Transportation policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. The final rule requires that the aggregate working load limits of the tiedown assemblies used to secure cargo be at least 1/2 times the weight of the article being secured. The total number of tiedown assemblies required by the rule would generally be the same as or slightly more than the number required using the previous breaking strength terminology. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required. Regulatory Flexibility Act In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601- 612), the agency has evaluated the effects of this rulemaking on small entities. As previously stated, the final rule amends Sec. 393.102(b) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations by requiring that the aggregate working load limits of the tiedown assemblies used to secure cargo be at least 1/2 times the weight of the article being secured. The total number of tiedown assemblies required by the rule would generally be the same as or slightly more than the number required prior to this amendment. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment) This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. Nothing in this document directly preempts any State law or regulation. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. Paperwork Reduction Act This document does not contain information collection requirements [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.]. National Environmental Policy Act The agency has analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment. Regulation Identification Number A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393 Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety. Issued on: June 23, 1994. Rodney E. Slater, Federal Highway Administrator. In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending part 393 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below. PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION [AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 393 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991), 49 U.S.C. 3102; 49 U.S.C. app. 2505; 49 CFR 1.48. 2. Section 393.7 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(2) through (b)(6) to read as follows: Sec. 393.7 Matter incorporated by reference. * * * * * (b) Availability. The materials incorporated by reference are available as follows: (1) * * * (2) Specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. (3) Specifications of the National Association of Chain Manufacturers. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: National Association of Chain Manufacturers, P.O. Box 3143, York, Pennsylvania 17402-0143. (4) Specifications of the Web Sling and Tiedown Association. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: Web Sling and Tiedown Association, Inc., 710 East Ogden Avenue, Suite 113, Naperville, Illinois 60563. (5) Manuals of the Wire Rope Technical Board. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: Wire Rope Technical Committee, P.O. Box 849, Stevensville, Maryland 21666. (6) Standards of the Cordage Institute. Information and copies may be obtained by writing to: Cordage Institute, 350 Lincoln Street, 115, Hingham, Massachusetts 02043. (7)-(9) [Reserved]. * * * * * 3. Section 393.102 is amended by removing paragraph (g) and by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: Sec. 393.102 Securement systems. * * * * * (b) Tiedown assemblies. Except for integral securement devices of containers designed for the transportation of containerized, intermodal cargo which conform to the rules in Sec. 393.100(e), the aggregate working load limit of the tiedown assemblies used to secure an article against movement in any direction must be at least 1/2 times the weight of the article. With the exception of marking identification, tiedowns used must meet applicable manufacturing standards listed in this paragraph (b). (1) Steel strapping. Steel strapping used as a component of a tiedown assembly must conform to the requirements of the 1991 edition of the American Society for Testing and Materials' Standard Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals, ASTM D3953-91. Steel strapping which is not marked by the manufacturer with a working load limit, shall be considered to have a working load limit equal to 1/4 of the breaking strength listed in ASTM D3953-91. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this document.) Steel strapping that is one inch wide or wider must have at least two pairs of crimps in each seal and when an end-over-end lap joint is formed, it must be sealed with at least two seals. (2) Chain. Chain used as a component of a tiedown assembly must conform to the requirements of the June 15, 1990, edition of the National Association of Chain Manufacturers' Welded Steel Chain Specifications applicable to all types of chain. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this document.) (3) Webbing. Webbing used as a component of a tiedown assembly must conform to the requirements of the 1991 edition of the Web Sling and Tiedown Association's Recommended Standard Specification for Synthetic Webbing Tiedowns. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this document.) (4) Wire rope. Wire rope used as a component of a tiedown assembly must conform to the requirements of the November 1985 second edition of the Wire Rope Technical Board's Wire Rope Users Manual. Wire rope which is not marked by the manufacturer with a working load limit, shall be considered to have a working load limit equal to \1/4\ of the nominal strength listed in the Wire Rope Users Manual. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this document.) (5) Cordage. Cordage used as a component of a tiedown assembly, must conform to the applicable Cordage Institute rope standards listed below: PETRS-2, Polyester Fiber Rope, 3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions, January, 1993; PPRS-2, Polypropylene Fiber Rope, 3- Strand and 8-Strand Constructions, August, 1992; CRS-1, Polyester/ Polypropylene Composite Rope Specifications, Three- and Eight-Strand Standard Construction, May 1979; NRS-1, Nylon Rope Specifications, Three- and Eight-Strand Standard Construction, May 1979; C1, Double Braided Nylon Rope Specifications, DBN-January 1984. (See Sec. 393.7(b) for information on the incorporation by reference and availability of these documents.) (6) Tables of working load limits. The working load limits listed in the tables in this paragraph are to be used when the tiedown material is not marked by the manufacturer with the working load limit. Tiedown materials which are marked by the manufacturer with working load limits which differ from the table, shall be considered to have a working load limit equal to the value for which they are marked. Synthetic cordage (e.g., nylon, polypropylene, polyester) which is not marked or labeled to enable identification of its composition or working load limit shall be considered to have a working load limit equal to that for polypropylene fiber rope. Tables to Sec. 393.102(b)(6)--Working Load Limits (WLL) [Chain WLL in pounds (kg)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grade 3 proof Grade 4 high Grade 7 Size inch (mm) coil test transport Grade 8 alloy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1/4\ (7)............................... 1300 (590) 2600 (1180) 3150 (1430) 3500 (1590) \5/16\ (8).............................. 1900 (860) 3900 (1770) 4700 (2130) 5100 (2310) \3/8\ (10).............................. 2650 (1200) 5400 (2450) 6600 (2990) 7100 (3220) \7/16\ (11)............................. 3500 (1590) 5800 (2630) 8750 (3970) ................ \1/2\ (13).............................. 4500 (2040) 9200 (4170) 11300 (5130) 12000 (5440) \5/8\ (16).............................. 6900 (3130) 11500 (5220) 15800 (7170) 18100 (8210) Chain Mark.............................. PC HT ................ T Examples................................ 3 4 7 8 30 40 70 80 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Synthetic Webbing WLL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Width inch (mm) WLL pounds (kg) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1-\3/4\ (45).......................................... 1750 (790) 2 (50)................................................ 2000 (910) 3 (75)................................................ 3000 (1360) 4 (100)............................................... 4000 (1810) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wire Rope (6 X 37, Fiber Core) WLL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Diameter inch (mm) WLL pounds (kg) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1/4\ (7)............................................. 1400 (640) \5/16\ (8)............................................ 2100 (950) \3/8\ (10)............................................ 3000 (1360) \7/16\ (11)........................................... 4100 (1860) \1/2\ (13)............................................ 5300 (2400) \5/8\ (16)............................................ 8300 (3770) \3/4\ (20)............................................ 10900 (4940) \7/8\ (22)............................................ 16100 (7300) 1 (25)................................................ 20900 (9480) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Manila Rope WLL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \3/8\ (10)............................................ 205 (90) \7/16\ (11)........................................... 265 (120) \1/2\ (13)............................................ 315 (150) \5/8\ (16)............................................ 465 (210) \3/4\ (20)............................................ 640 (290) 1 (25)................................................ 1050 (480) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Polypropylene Fiber Rope WLL (3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \3/8\ (10)............................................ 400 (180) \7/16\ (11)........................................... 525 (240) \1/2\ (13)............................................ 625 (280) \5/8\ (16)............................................ 925 (420) \3/4\ (20)............................................ 1275 (580) 1 (25)................................................ 2100 (950) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Polyester Fiber Rope WLL (3-Strand and 8-Strand Constructions) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \3/8\ (10)............................................ 555 (250) \7/16\ (11)........................................... 750 (340) \1/2\ (13)............................................ 960 (440) \5/8\ (16)............................................ 1500 (680) \3/4\ (20)............................................ 1880 (850) 1 (25)................................................ 3300 (1500) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nylon Rope WLL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \3/8\ (10)............................................ 278 (130) \7/16\ (11)........................................... 410 (190) \1/2\ (13)............................................ 525 (240) \5/8\ (16)............................................ 935 (420) \3/4\ (20)............................................ 1420 (640) 1 (25)................................................ 2520 (1140) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Double Braided Nylon Rope WLL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \3/8\ (10)............................................ 336 (150) \7/16\ (11)........................................... 502 (230) \1/2\ (13)............................................ 655 (300) \5/8\ (16)............................................ 1130 (510) \3/4\ (20)............................................ 1840 (830) 1 (25)................................................ 3250 (1470) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steel Strapping WLL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Width - thickness inch WLL pounds (kg) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1-\1/4\ x 0.029..................................... 1190 (540) 1-\1/4\ x 0.031..................................... 1190 (540) 1-\1/4\ x 0.035..................................... 1190 (540) 1-\1/4\ x 0.044..................................... 1690 (770) 1-\1/4\ x 0.050..................................... 1690 (770) 1-\1/4\ x 0.057..................................... 1925 (870) 2 x 0.044........................................... 2650 (1200) 2 x 0.050........................................... 2650 (1200) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * * * * * [FR Doc. 94-16069 Filed 7-5-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: X94-40825] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: August 25, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 49 CFR Part 393 [FHWA Docket No. MC 93-21] RIN 2125-AD18 Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Protection Against Shifting or Falling Cargo Correction In rule document 94-16069 beginning on page 34712 in the issue of Wednesday, July 6, 1994 make the following corrections: Sec. 393.102 [Corrected] 1. On page 34719, in Sec. 393.102(b)(6), in the table, under the headings ``Manila Rope WLL, Polypropylene Fiber Rope, and Polyester Fiber Rope'', the headings ``Diameter inch (mm)'' should appear in the left column and ``WLL pounds (kg)'' should appear in the right column. 2. On page 34720, in Sec. 393.102(b)(6), in the table, under the heading, ``Double Braided Nylon Rope WLL'' the headings ``Diameter inch (mm)'' should appear in the left column and ``WLL pounds (kg)'' should appear in the right column. BILLING CODE 1505-01-D