Operational Policy 14 - Specific Commodity Guidance
| Entry Date | December 16, 2016 |
|---|---|
| Issue Number | 17-004-VEH |
| Name | Fred Kovall |
| Agency | Anderson Trucking Services |
| Address | 725 Opportunity DrSt. Cloud, MN, 56301-5886United StatesMap It (opens in a new tab) |
| Phone | (320) 249-6838 |
| [email protected] | |
| Committee | Vehicle Committee |
| Status | Closed |
| Summary of Issue | There is still confusion as to what is meant by the word “load” in Operational Policy 14 under the Commodity Specific securement guidance. There has been confusion as to whether a violation should be cited for the entire vehicle combination, per unit, or per article of cargo. The cargo securement section states “All defects of the same regulatory section or subsection shall be grouped together as one violation per unit” where the Specific Commodity section states violations “will be grouped together and documented as one violation per load under the section number”. |
| Justification or Need | The Cargo Securement Forum discussed this issue. It was discussed in the forum that each transport unit should result in no more than one violation for cargo securement. The Forum wanted this issue request submitted to have this issue addressed again with the Vehicle Committee. It was also suggested by the regulators and other members of the forum that the example of the heavy vehicle should be edited as it is misleading considering most heavy vehicles do not require a tiedown on the accessory equipment. It is recommended that this be revised to a different specific commodity requirement. |
| Request for Action | The Cargo Securement Forum discussed this issue. It was discussed in the forum that each transport unit should result in no more than one violation for cargo securement. The Forum wanted this issue request submitted to have this issue addressed again with the Vehicle Committee. It was also suggested by the regulators and other members of the forum that the example of the heavy vehicle should be edited as it is misleading considering most heavy vehicles do not require a tiedown on the accessory equipment. It is recommended that this be revised to a different specific commodity requirement. |