Guidance/Interpretation of Secondary Locking Devices on Twist Locks

I have a interpretation question as I have received conflicting statements. I have contacted Trooper King from PA State Police about inspection # PAN605613995. I inquired if the secondary locking devices were in place or disengaged. I was informed that the twist locks and secondary locks were engaged but, there was no spring to keep the lever in place. Trooper King stated he was trained that this was a violation. To confirm this I have contacted Rion Stann from PA State Police commercial vehicle training. I questioned why PA Troopers are trained to place intermodal containers out of service for this issue. He confirmed that LT. King was directed that this is an out of service violation as per someone at FMCSA. Please note that this is designed by the manufacture to work in this manner and meets AAR-952 and all ISO standards. Please note this meets guidance bulletin on securement of containers 2011-03 issued April 14, 2011. These types of alternate secondary locks is not required when the built in secondary lock is working as designed and intended by manufacturer. A gravity latch is designed with no spring or coil from manufacturer. In our case the latch in the picture was in proper working order andin the down position. The operating handle was behind the latch and the the trailer was placed out of service. When decoding the Stoughton trailer VIN we learn it is a 2003, 53 foot chassis manufactured in Evansville WI. The chassis came stander with gravity latches which are a metal latching covering the primary twist lock handles. There are no springs, retainer clips, cotter pins, tension springs manufactured into this secondary lock. So long as the locks are down in place they are used as intended therefore the zip ties are not required. This is as per 2011-13 Inspection Guidance on securment of intermodal containers quoted below. Please also see attached pictures of gravity latches and vin decoding on aforementioned chassis. Inspection guidance bulletin securement of containers 2011-03 Issued April 14, 2011 2. The means of ensuring integral locking devices do not become unintentionally unfastened is normally a built-in secondary lock mechanism as seen in Figure 2. When a built-in secondary lock is broken, ineffective or missing, an alternate secondary locking method can be used. This may consist of a tie-wrap such as shown in Figure 3. This type of alternate secondary lock is not required when the built-in secondary lock is working as designed and intended by the manufacturer. Please note attached Issue No. 06-002-VEH Status: CLOSED Report: May. 24, 2016 CFR 393.126 (b) (b) Securement of intermodal containers transported on container chassis vehicle(s). (1) All lower corners of the intermodal container must be secured to the container chassis with securement devices or integral locking devices that cannot unintentionally become unfastened while the vehicle is in transit. I am looking for clarification on the definition of and description of what constitutes an unintentionally unfastened secondary lock. The interpretation of an unintentionally unfastened secondary lock is being overriding the manufacturers intended gravity lock design with no spring.

Urgent as PA Troopers are placing several intermodal chassis out of service for secondary locks that are in working order and in the locked position with no springs or coils as designed by manufacturer.

Guidance of what constitutes as an unintentionally unfastened secondary lock. Guidance that gravity latches designed by an engineer and installed by the manufacture of a chassis do not need springs or coils to perform there intended function. A gravity latch with no spring or coils is not a violation.