FMCSR 393.102C: Tiedown Load Limit — Citations & OOS Rate

No, but there's a significant risk. Across our 13 million inspection records, 393.102C citations result in an out-of-service placement 33.3% of the time. That's slightly higher than the all-FMCSR average OOS rate of 31.4%. Of the 12 all-time citations in our database, 4 trucks were placed out of service and 8 were not. Whether you're OOS depends on the severity of the load limit violation and the inspector's judgment at roadside.

393.102C is relatively uncommon but carries moderate OOS risk. It ranks #2132 out of 3,036 FMCSR codes by citation volume. Among peer codes in vehicle maintenance, 393.102C's 33.3% OOS rate sits between inoperable lamps (6.9% OOS) and general inspection/repair failures (45.3% OOS). The low citation count (12 all-time) means this isn't a widespread problem across the industry, but when it is cited, one in three trucks face an out-of-service order.

First, understand what the inspector found: which tiedown exceeded its working load limit and by how much. Request the detailed inspection report. Second, contact your carrier's safety manager or fleet maintenance to assess the tiedown system. Third, do not reuse that tiedown until it's replaced or certified. If you were placed out of service, you cannot operate the vehicle until the violation is corrected and re-inspected. Fourth, photograph the tiedown and any repairs for your records; keep documentation of corrective action for DataQs if you plan to contest.

Yes, you can file a DataQs Request for Reconsideration if you believe the citation is inaccurate or that the tiedown actually met working load specifications. DataQs targets safety data errors—wrong vehicle identification, inspector mistake, or documentation issues. Load limit violations are measurable physical findings, so contestability depends on whether the inspection method was flawed or whether records prove the tiedown was within spec. Gather any manufacturer documentation, load calculations, and inspection photos to support your case.

Very few. Our inspection records show 4 citations in the last 12 months, with the most recent activity in May 2025 (2 citations). Over the past 90 days, zero 393.102C citations have been issued. This code is extremely rare in roadside enforcement—you're unlikely to encounter it unless your tiedowns are significantly worn, overloaded, or improperly rated for your load. The low volume suggests most carriers maintain compliant tiedown systems.

TBC TRUCKING CORP (USDOT 1468692) accounts for 6 of the 12 all-time citations for exceeding tiedown working load limits. The remaining 6 citations are spread across six other carriers: Smith Leasing Co LLC, Mangum's Inc, Three Bars LLC, Freeman the Treeman LLC, Fulks Helicopter Services LLC, and HS Express LLC—each with 1 citation. No single carrier pattern dominates, but TBC Trucking's frequency suggests recurring tiedown compliance issues worth investigating if you're in that fleet.

Freightliners (FRHT) lead with 7 citations out of 12 all-time, followed by unknown makes (UNK) with 6 citations. Peterbilts (PTRB) account for 2 citations. International, Kenworth, and trailer units each have 1 citation. The Freightliner concentration may reflect market share and volume on the road, but it also suggests that inspectors find tiedown issues across all major manufacturer categories. Tiedown compliance is a universal concern, not brand-specific.

No clear trend. Our data shows sporadic enforcement: 2 citations in May 2025, 1 in June 2025, and 1 in August 2025. That's 4 citations across the last 12 months and zero in the most recent 90 days. This low and uneven volume suggests 393.102C is cited opportunistically when an inspector observes an obvious problem, not as part of a stepped-up enforcement push. Stay compliant with tiedown working load ratings, and the risk remains minimal.