HIGHWAY SAFETY

Federal and State 

Efforts Related to 

Accidents That 

Involve NonCommercial Vehicles 

Carrying Unsecured 

Loads

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2012

GAO-13-24

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-24, a report to 

congressional committees 

November 2012 

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Federal and State Efforts Related to Accidents That 

Involve Non-Commercial Vehicles Carrying 

Unsecured Loads

Why GAO Did This Study

Vehicles carrying objects that are not 

properly secured pose a safety risk on 

our nation's roadways. Debris that falls 

from a vehicle can collide with other 

vehicles or pedestrians, causing 

serious injuries or fatalities. According 

to data collected by NHTSA, there 

were about 440 fatalities caused by 

roadway debris in 2010. However, the 

exact number of incidents resulting

from vehicles carrying unsecured loads 

is unknown.

Congress, through the Conference 

Report for the Consolidated and 

Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 

(2012), directed NHTSA to improve its 

data on unsecured-load incidents and 

directed GAO to report on state laws

and related exemptions, and punitive 

measures regarding unsecured loads

on non-commercial vehicles, such as 

cars and light trucks used for noncommercial purposes. This report 

examines NHTSA’s data collection 

efforts as well as states’ laws related to 

unsecured loads. GAO reviewed 

NHTSA documents and interviewed 

officials from NHTSA, as well as 

representatives of highway safety 

associations and state police agencies. 

GAO also conducted a survey of all 50 

states and the District of Columbia, 

with a response rate of 100 percent,

and researched the laws, punitive 

measures, and education efforts in 

each state. 

GAO provided a draft of this report to 

NHTSA for review and comment. 

NHTSA provided technical comments 

that were incorporated, as appropriate.

 

What GAO Found

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) collects limited 

information on crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads but plans to 

make changes to collect better information. Currently, NHTSA collects some data 

in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the National Automotive Sampling 

System General Estimates System. However, the systems do not currently have 

a data category to distinguish between debris resulting from natural sources 

(such as a tree branch) and debris resulting from human error (such as an 

unsecured load). As a result, NHTSA cannot currently identify how many crashes 

involve vehicles carrying unsecured loads. NHTSA intends to make changes to 

both its systems to better identify crashes involving unsecured loads. These 

changes will go into effect in 2013. However, NHTSA may still face challenges 

collecting this data because 1) law enforcement officials face difficulties in 

determining whether a crash involved an unsecured load and 2) states do not 

collect uniform data on unsecured loads in their police crash reports. NHTSA 

officials stated that they would likely recommend changes to the Model Minimum 

Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC)—voluntary guidelines intended to create 

uniform data in police crash reports; however, the revised guidelines will not be 

released until 2017 because of MMUCC’s 5-year cycle of updates. NHTSA 

officials acknowledged that even with the changes in its data systems, data 

improvements will take time to implement and data on unsecured-load crashes 

will likely continue to be imprecise.

Example of an Unsecured Load on a Non-Commercial Vehicle 

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have statutes regarding unsecured 

loads that pertain to non-commercial and commercial vehicles. A majority of 

states and the District of Columbia reported exempting vehicles from unsecured 

load statutes for primarily commercial activities such as roadway maintenance or 

agriculture activities, while 9 states have statutes that apply to all vehicles. All 50

states and the District of Columbia reported having fines or penalties for violating 

unsecured load statutes ranging from $10 to $5,000; fifteen states add the 

possibility of imprisonment. Ten states also reported having a safety or education 

program related to unsecured loads.

View GAO-13-24. For more information, 

contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or 

FlemingS@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Letter 1 

Background 4

NHTSA’s Changes to Its Collection of Data on Unsecured Loads 

Will Take Time to Implement 6

All 50 States and the District of Columbia Have Laws That Pertain 

to Non-Commercial Unsecured Loads, but Exemptions, Fines, 

and Penalties Vary 13

Agency Comments 17

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 18

Appendix II Survey Questions 21

Appendix III Current FARS and NASS GES Data Category Definitions and 

Planned 2013 Changes 23

Appendix IV Non-Commercial Unsecured-Load Laws, Exemptions, and 

Fines or Penalties or Both 25

Appendix V “Secure Your Load” Educational Materials for 

Non-Commercial Vehicles 30

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 33

Table

Table 1: Description of NHTSA’s Data Collection Systems 8

Figures

Figure 1: Example of Non-Commercial Vehicle Carrying an 

Unsecured Load 5

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Figure 2: Obvious Unsecured-Load Crash and a Crash That Is 

Difficult to Identify as an Unsecured-Load Crash 11

Figure 3: State Statutes That Provide Exemptions for UnsecuredLoad Laws, 2012 14

Figure 4: State Punitive Measures for Violating Unsecured-Load 

Laws, 2012 16

Figure 5: North Carolina Department of Transportation 30

Figure 6: Washington State Department of Ecology 31

Figure 7: Washington State Department of Licensing 32

Abbreviations 

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

MMUCC Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 

NASS GES National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates 

 System

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

November 15, 2012

The Honorable Patty Murray

Chairman

The Honorable Susan Collins

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing 

 and Urban Development and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Latham

Chairman

The Honorable John Olver

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing 

 and Urban Development and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Non-commercial vehicles1 carrying objects that are not properly secured 

pose a safety risk on our nation’s roadways. Debris from a vehicle’s 

unsecured load can collide with other vehicles, or pedestrians alongside 

roads, causing serious injuries or fatalities. In addition, this type of debris 

can be a hazard on the road that can result in a crash as drivers swerve 

to avoid it. Over the last 10 years, several serious crashes involving noncommercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads2 have highlighted the 

safety risks associated with this practice. For example, in February 2004, 

a driver in Renton, Washington, was critically injured when an 

 

1

For the purposes of our analysis, non-commercial vehicles include passenger vehicles 

(cars or light trucks) used for non-commercial purposes. Light trucks are trucks of 10,000 

pounds gross vehicle-weight rating or less, including pickups, vans, truck-based station 

wagons, and utility vehicles.

2

The definition of an unsecured load varies across states but generally includes cargo in 

transit that is not properly restrained, tied down, or secured with tarps, nets, or ropes to 

reasonably prevent a portion from falling off. Cargo can include personal property or 

objects on the vehicle or attached to a trailer. Open trailers can be obtained from personal 

or commercial sources, such as U-Haul. For the purposes of this report, “unsecured load” 

includes cargo that is either not secured or improperly secured.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

entertainment center fell from the back of a trailer being pulled by a 

vehicle in front of her. In November 2011, a woman was killed in Beverly, 

West Virginia, when unsecured contents fell off a trailer being hauled by a 

non-commercial vehicle and went through her windshield. More recently, 

in April 2012, a pedestrian in North Naples, Florida, sustained a fractured 

skull and spinal injuries when a mattress and metal frame fell off a noncommercial vehicle and struck the victim.

According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

data, in 2010, there were about 51,000 crashes—including almost 10,000 

injured persons and 440 known fatalities—involving a vehicle striking an 

object that came off of another vehicle or a non-fixed object lying in the 

roadway. However, the exact number of crashes involving noncommercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads is unknown, in part 

because there is no mechanism for distinguishing road obstructions 

resulting from human error, such as an unsecured load, and those 

involving natural elements such as a fallen tree. Moreover, while the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulates securing 

cargo on commercial vehicles, similar federal regulations for noncommercial vehicles do not exist.3

In response to these issues, the Conference Report accompanying the 

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, directed 

NHTSA to collect and classify data resulting from crashes involving road 

debris in a manner that would distinguish road obstructions resulting from 

human error from those involving natural elements. Further, the 

Conference Report also directed GAO to report on the various state laws, 

associated penalties, exemptions, and enforcement actions regarding 

unsecured loads.

States determine what laws, if any, to 

apply to securing cargo on non-commercial vehicles.

4 In response to this congressional direction, this report 

examines (1) efforts NHTSA has undertaken to monitor crashes involving 

vehicles5

 

3

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s cargo securement rules apply to all 

cargo-carrying commercial motor vehicles.49 C.F.R. § 393.100 et seq.

carrying unsecured loads and (2) existing state laws, 

4

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 112-284, at 300 (2011) accompanying the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012, Pub. L. No.112- 55, 125 Stat. 552.

5

NHTSA collects data on crashes involving both non-commercial and commercial 

vehicles.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

exemptions, and punitive measures regarding non-commercial vehicles 

carrying unsecured loads.

To identify efforts NHTSA has undertaken to monitor crashes involving 

vehicles carrying unsecured loads, we obtained documents from and 

conducted interviews with NHTSA officials to obtain information on the 

agency’s current policies, procedures, and practices for monitoring 

crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads. Specifically, we 

obtained information about what data on unsecured loads NHTSA 

currently collects; how NHTSA coordinates with state agencies on its data 

collection efforts; actions NHTSA has taken or plans to take to improve its 

data collection processes in response to congressional direction; and 

challenges, if any, that NHTSA faces in improving its data on vehicles 

carrying unsecured loads. In addition, we conducted a literature search to 

identify and review relevant studies, reports, and available data on 

crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads and to gain a better 

understanding of the magnitude of the problem of vehicles carrying 

unsecured loads. Finally, we analyzed NHTSA’s crash data from the 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive 

Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES) to identify 

the number of crashes from 2005 through 2010 in which a vehicle struck 

falling or shifting cargo or an object lying in the roadway. Based on our 

interviews with NHTSA officials and our review of NHTSA’s policies and 

procedures for maintaining the data and verifying their accuracy, we 

determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

our report.

To identify existing state laws, exemptions, and punitive measures 

regarding non-commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads, we 

conducted a literature review of and legal research on state laws, 

penalties, and exemptions regarding properly securing loads on noncommercial vehicles. In addition, we conducted a survey of all 50 states 

and the District of Columbia to supplement, verify, and corroborate data 

obtained from our legal research and to obtain additional information on 

penalties, enforcement actions, and education and prevention efforts in 

each state. We received completed surveys from 51 respondents for a 

response rate of 100 percent. In addition, we conducted interviews with 

state police officials in 7 states to collect information on enforcement 

actions and education and prevention efforts related to properly securing 

loads carried by non-commercial vehicles. We selected states that (1) 

were geographically diverse, (2) were of varying sizes, and (3) have 

varying types of laws related to non-commercial vehicles carrying 

unsecured loads. We also conducted interviews with associations and 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

individuals active in highway safety issues to obtain additional information 

on issues related to unsecured loads and efforts by states to deal with 

these issues. Interviewees included the American Automobile Association 

Foundation for Traffic Safety and one of the co-authors of a 2004 study 

for this foundation examining the safety impacts of vehicle-related road 

debris; the Governors Highway Safety Association; and the 

Transportation Cargo Safety Organization.6

We conducted this performance audit from March 2012 to November 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further details on 

our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I and the survey is 

reproduced in appendix II. 

Unsecured cargo or other debris falling from a moving vehicle can pose a 

serious hazard to other motorists and can lead to property damage, 

injuries, or fatalities (see fig. 1). Examples of unsecured-load debris that 

often ends up on roadways include objects such as mattresses or box 

springs, ladders, and furniture items.

 

6

American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety, The Safety Impact of 

Vehicle-Related Road Debris, (Washington, D.C.: June 2004).

Background
 

Page 5 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Figure 1: Example of Non-Commercial Vehicle Carrying an Unsecured Load

NHTSA’s mission is to prevent motor vehicle crashes and reduce injuries, 

fatalities, and economic losses associated with these crashes. To carry 

out this mission, the agency conducts a range of activities, including 

setting vehicle safety standards; conducting research on a variety of 

safety issues; administering grant programs authorized by Congress; 

providing guidance and other assistance to states to help them address 

key safety issues, such as drunken driving and distracted driving; and 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

collecting and analyzing data on crashes. NHTSA analyzes crash data to 

determine the extent of a problem and to determine what steps it should 

take to develop countermeasures. Regarding unsecured loads, NHTSA 

collects some data regarding whether a crash involved an unsecured 

load.

Determining the number of crashes involving unsecured loads can be a 

challenge because data are limited. NHTSA does track the number of 

crashes involving road debris. However, as mentioned previously, these 

data include all types of road debris, including debris resulting from 

human error (e.g., unsecured load) and debris that is from natural 

elements (e.g., a fallen tree branch). Based on available NHTSA data, 

such crashes comprise a small percentage of total police-reported 

crashes. For example, in 2010, out of a total of about 5,419,000 crashes, 

about 1 percent— 51,000 crashes—involved a vehicle striking an object 

that came off another vehicle or a non-fixed object lying in the roadway.

Of these 51,000 crashes, there were almost 10,000 people injured and 

440 fatalities—about 1 percent of the total number of fatalities from motor 

vehicle crashes in that year (32,855).

States determine what laws, if any, to apply to non-commercial vehicles 

carrying unsecured loads and whether to develop prevention programs 

geared towards reducing crashes of non-commercial vehicles carrying 

unsecured loads. State and local law enforcement agencies are 

responsible for enforcing these laws.

While NHTSA currently collects limited information on crashes involving 

unsecured loads, the agency intends to make changes to its data

systems to follow Congress’s direction to distinguish road obstructions 

resulting from human error from those involving natural elements. 

NHTSA’s changes to its data systems will allow the agency to better track 

crashes involving unsecured loads, but NHTSA will still face challenges 

with collecting this information because the determination as to whether a 

crash involved an unsecured load is made by state law enforcement 

officials and can be difficult to make. Further, there are some limitations 

with respect to the state data collected in police crash reports, and data 

improvements will take time to implement.

NHTSA’s Changes to 

Its Collection of Data 

on Unsecured Loads

Will Take Time to 

Implement
 

Page 7 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

NHTSA collects data on crashes and fatalities that may involve both 

commercial and non-commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads in two 

data systems—FARS and NASS GES. (see table 1).7 The FARS provides 

a census of police-reported traffic crashes nationwide in which at least 

one fatality occurred. The NASS GES provides national estimates of 

crash statistics based on a sample of police-reported crashes.8 For both 

data systems, police crash reports, which are unique to each state, are a 

key source of data. NHTSA gathers this information from states and 

recodes it into a uniform format. 

 

7

NHTSA also collects data on incidents involving unsecured loads in its investigation 

based data systems which include the National Automotive Sampling System 

Crashworthiness Data System, National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Surveys, Special 

Crash Investigations, and Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network systems.

These systems currently have data elements to identify and collect detailed data on 

unsecured loads; however incidents involving unsecured loads do not appear in these 

systems with sufficient frequency to allow NHTSA to make a national estimate based on 

them. 

8

For a crash to be eligible for the GES sample a police crash report must be completed 

and it must involve an crash with a motor vehicle resulting in property damage, injury, or 

death. 

NHTSA Plans to Collect 

Better Data on Unsecured 

Loads in Response to 

Congressional Direction
 

Page 8 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Table 1: Description of NHTSA’s Data Collection Systems

Data system Description Data source Data collection method

FARS The FARS provides data on fatal traffic 

crashes based on a census of the traffic 

crashes in which at least one fatality 

occurred. To be included in a FARS, a 

crash must involve a motor vehicle 

traveling on a facility customarily open to 

the public and must result in the death of 

an occupant of a vehicle or a nonmotorist within 30 days of the crash.

Data are obtained from state and 

local police crash reports, state 

vehicle registration files, state 

driver-licensing files, State Highway 

Department data, vital statistics, 

death certificates, coroner/medical 

examiner reports, and emergency 

medical service reports.

Data for FARS are collected on a 

voluntary basis through cooperative 

agreements between NHTSA and 

each of the 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico. On 

average police crash reports are 

obtained from approximately 9,900 of 

the 17,000 police jurisdictions in the 

United States.

NASS GES NASS GES provides national estimates 

of crash and injury statistics based on a 

nationally representative, random 

sample of all types of police-reported 

motor vehicle traffic crashes. 

Data are obtained from state and 

local police crash reports. 

About 50,000 police crash reports are 

randomly selected each year from 410 

police jurisdictions in 60 sites across 

the United States.

Source: NHTSA information.

Currently, there are three data categories in these systems that track data 

on crashes involving road debris. However, as noted previously, these 

data categories do not currently distinguish between different types of 

roadway debris (i.e., debris resulting from natural/environmental sources 

versus debris resulting from human error). As a result, NHTSA cannot 

currently identify how many crashes involve vehicles carrying unsecured 

loads.

In response to the congressional direction to improve its data on 

unsecured-load crashes, NHTSA officials stated that they are currently 

making changes to the FARS and the NASS GES to collect better 

information and better track crashes involving unsecured loads.

Specifically, NHTSA has developed changes to both systems to (1) revise

two existing data categories on road debris and (2) add two new data 

categories. The revised and new categories will provide more specific 

information on unsecured-load crashes. (See appendix III for current 

FARS and NASS GES data category definitions and planned 2013 

changes.) For example, NHTSA will now be able to distinguish between 

the following two types of crash scenarios that involve an object being set 

in motion by one vehicle and striking another vehicle, a person, or 

property, causing injury or damage:

• Cargo, such as a mattress, being transported by one motor vehicle 

becomes dislodged and strikes another vehicle, a person, or property.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

• An object in the road, such as a tree branch, is struck by a motor 

vehicle and then strikes another vehicle, a person, or property.

NHTSA will also be able to distinguish between two types of crash 

scenarios that involve a vehicle striking an object already in the road 

(without striking another vehicle, a person, or property):

• A motor vehicle strikes a non-fixed object already at rest in the 

roadway, such as a mattress, and the object is known to have been 

cargo from an unsecured load.

• A motor vehicle strikes a non-fixed object already at rest in the 

roadway, such as a tree branch, and the object is known to have not

come from a motor vehicle, or it is unknown if it came from a motor 

vehicle. 

NHTSA officials stated that they intend to analyze this data in the future to 

determine whether actions are needed to address this problem. They 

explained that in deciding when to take actions regarding a traffic safety 

issue, NHTSA first tries to determine the extent of the problem by looking 

at counts or trends. The agency then may conduct research to better 

understand the problem and work toward developing countermeasures.9

According to NHTSA officials, these changes will be effective in the FARS 

and NASS GES during the 2013 data collection year, which begins 

January 2013. To implement these changes, NHTSA plans to develop a 

2013 coding manual between mid-August 2012 and December 5, 2012, 

and develop data-entry specifications by November 2012. NHTSA 

officials stated that they plan to train FARS analysts at the state level and 

NASS GES data coders on how to use the new and revised data 

elements in early December 2012. Public users will first have access to 

the 2013 data in 2014 after data collection and quality control checks are 

completed. 

 

9

NHTSA also intends to use data in its investigative data systems to aid in the 

development of countermeasures.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

While NHTSA’s changes to the FARS and NASS GES data systems will 

allow the agency to better track crashes involving unsecured loads, it still 

faces challenges collecting data on these crashes. Two primary factors 

affect NHTSA’s ability to collect this information: (1) law enforcement 

officials face difficulties in determining whether a crash involved an 

unsecured load and (2) states do not collect uniform data on unsecured 

loads in their police crash reports. Even with the changes that NHTSA is 

making in its data collection processes and procedures, the resulting data 

will be imprecise because it relies on state reporting of crashes and data 

improvements will take time to implement as acknowledged by NHTSA. 

NHTSA officials stated that they will make every effort to capture the data 

available in the source documents to provide the most accurate 

assessment of this safety issue.

Even though NHTSA is improving its data systems, determining whether 

a crash is a result of an unsecured load will remain a challenge. Several 

law enforcement officials we spoke with indicated that classifying a crash 

involving an unsecured load is difficult in some cases, because it is 

unclear whether the object on the road was as a result of an unsecured 

load or another factor. One law enforcement official explained that if an 

object falls from a moving vehicle and immediately hits a vehicle or a 

person, the crash is generally classified as an unsecured-load crash. 

However, if an object falls from a moving vehicle onto the road and 

remains on the road for some time before another vehicle subsequently 

strikes the object, then the crash will generally not be classified as an 

unsecured-load crash unless there is a witness available to report that the 

object originally fell off of another vehicle (see fig. 2). The official 

explained that identifying the first incident as an unsecured-load crash is 

generally easier because of a higher likelihood of witnesses at the scene 

who saw the crash occur and saw the unsecured-load fall from the 

vehicle. In the second scenario, where debris remains on the road for 

some time, there may be no information to explain how the object on the 

road ended up there. According to this official, it is up to the reporting 

officer to determine how to classify or describe the crash in the police 

report. Under NHTSA’s planned data system changes, the agency will be 

able to specify in their data systems crashes that involve unsecured loads

if all pertinent information is available to the reporting officer. However, if 

the incident is not identified by the reporting officer as an unsecured-load 

crash in the first place, it may not be flagged as such in NHTSA’s data

systems. NHTSA officials acknowledged that it can be difficult in some 

cases to determine if something in the road fell off a vehicle if there is no 

evidence available.

Identifying UnsecuredLoad Crashes Can Be 

Difficult, and Data 

Improvements Will Take 

Some Time to Implement

Law Enforcement Officials 

Face Difficulties Determining 

Whether a Crash Is a Result of 

an Unsecured Load
 

Page 11 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Figure 2: Obvious Unsecured-Load Crash and a Crash That Is Difficult to Identify as an Unsecured-Load Crash

States do not uniformly define and report data on unsecured loads in 

police crash reports. NHTSA uses information from police crash reports to 

determine whether a crash is an unsecured-load incident or another type 

of incident. Some state crash reports contain a field where officers can 

check off a box indicating whether “unsecured loads” were a contributing 

factor in a crash while others rely on the officer to explain in the narrative 

section of the report whether the incident involving an unsecured load or 

other factor. NHTSA uses information from both sections of the report in 

developing their data. However, in some cases, information about 

whether a crash involved an unsecured load may not be included in the 

narrative portion of the police reports. According to NHTSA officials, 

reports on fatal crashes are more likely to have this information; however, 

the level of information that is included in the narrative report could vary 

from officer to officer. If a police crash report does not contain information 

indicating that a crash involved an unsecured load, then NHTSA cannot 

classify the crash as such.

On a voluntary basis, most states have begun collecting a similar 

minimum core of information in their police crash reports. These core 

elements are outlined in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 

(MMUCC), voluntary guidelines for the implementation of uniform crash 

Data Are Inconsistent 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

data elements.10

Any changes to the guidelines cannot be made for quite some time as 

MMUCC operates on a 5-year cycle. MMUCC released its revised 

guidelines in July 2012, and the next update is not expected until 2017. 

NHTSA officials explained that they would be unable to recommend 

changes to the guidelines until 2016, when MMUCC begins the process 

updating the guidelines. If changes are made to the guidelines, these 

changes would not go into effect until after 2017. NHTSA officials also 

noted that making changes to police crash reports in response to 

changes in the guidelines can take from 12 to 18 months. Some police 

agencies now use electronic police crash reports, and as a result, 

changes to the police crash reports could require information technology 

infrastructure investments to update their electronic systems. Moreover, 

additional training of police officers regarding how to use the new data 

elements would be required. NHTSA officials stated that in the interim, 

state FARS analysts and NASS GES data coders will communicate to law 

enforcement officials that information on unsecured-load crashes should 

be included in the narrative portion of police crash reports.

According to NHTSA officials, most states follow these 

guidelines to varying degrees. One avenue for ensuring that all states 

collect consistent information on unsecured loads in their police crash 

reports would be to include unsecured-load data as a core data element 

in the next edition of the guidelines. NHTSA does not have independent 

authority to seek changes in state police reports; however, NHTSA 

officials stated that they will likely recommend changes to MMUCC 

guidelines. In order for a new data element to be added, it must be 

approved by the MMUCC Expert Panel, which includes representatives 

from NHTSA, FMCSA, the Federal Highway Administration, the National 

Transportation Safety Board, the Governors Highway Safety Association, 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Ford Motor Company, Emergency 

Medical System agencies, and local and state police agencies. 

Recommended changes to the guidelines can be submitted by any 

agency represented on the MMUCC expert panel.

 

10MMUCC was originally developed in response to requests by states interested in 

improving and standardizing their state crash data. Lack of uniform reporting made the 

sharing and comparison of state crash data difficult. Since it was first published in 1998, 

the MMUCC guidelines have become the standard most used by states in developing and 

revising their police crash reports. 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

All fifty states and the District of Columbia have statutes regarding 

unsecured loads that pertain to non-commercial vehicles. While nine 

states reported having no exemptions related to their statute, a majority of 

states and the District of Columbia reported exempting vehicles from 

unsecured-load statutes most commonly for roadway maintenance or 

agriculture activities, but these exemptions are primarily related to 

commercial activities. All fifty states and the District of Columbia reported 

having fines or penalties for violating unsecured-load statutes ranging 

from $10 to $5,000; fifteen of these states add the possibility of 

imprisonment. (See appendix IV for summary of all fifty states and the 

District of Columbia’s laws, exemptions, and penalties/fines.) Ten states 

reported having a safety or education program related to unsecured 

loads.

All fifty states and the District of Columbia have statutes regarding 

unsecured loads that pertain to non-commercial vehicles. While the 

statutes vary widely, many use a common construction similar to: “No 

vehicle shall be driven or moved on any highway unless such vehicle is 

so constructed or loaded as to prevent any of its load from dropping, 

shifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping there from,” a statement that is 

oftentimes followed by exemptions as discussed below. However, a few 

states such as Mississippi have short statutes that contain a shortened 

form of this common language.11 Other states such as Oklahoma set forth 

more specific instructions in the statute directing, for example, the 

covering of loads to be “securely fastened so as to prevent said covering 

or load from becoming loose, detached or in any manner a hazard to 

other users of the highway.”12

The state statutes on unsecured loads differ more frequently in their 

description of exemptions. According to our survey, 41 states and the 

District of Columbia have exemptions from unsecured-load laws in their

statutes (see fig. 3). These exemptions most commonly applied to 

roadwork and agriculture. For example, the most common roadway 

exemption includes “vehicles applying salt or sand to gain traction” or 

“vehicles dropping water for cleaning or maintaining the highway.” 

Exemptions for commercial activities range from general wording such as 

 

11Miss. Code Ann. §63-5-55.

1247 Okl. St. § 14-105.

All 50 States and the 

District of Columbia 

Have Laws That 

Pertain to NonCommercial 

Unsecured Loads, but 

Exemptions, Fines, 

and Penalties Vary

All States Have Laws 

Pertaining to Commercial 

Unsecured Loads That also 

Apply to Non-Commercial 

Vehicles, but Certain 

Commercial Activities Are 

Frequently Exempted
 

Page 14 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

“applies to all motor vehicles except those carrying agricultural loads,” to 

industry-specific exemptions such as “applies to all motor vehicles except 

logging trucks or those carrying wood, lumber, or sawmill wastes.” 

Nine states reported having no exemptions to their unsecured-load 

statute, including Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, 

South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Figure 3: State Statutes That Provide Exemptions for Unsecured-Load Laws, 2012
 

Page 15 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

All states have some level of fines or penalties for violations of 

unsecured-load statutes. Most states have specific penalties ranging from 

as little as $10 to as much as $5,000; fifteen states include possible jail 

time. (See fig. 4.)

• Two states—Nevada and New Hampshire—reported the fine as 

unknown, because it is imposed at the local court level and could vary 

widely.

• Twenty states and the District of Columbia reported maximum fines of 

$10 to less than $500 and only two of those states—Tennessee and 

Colorado—add possible jail time in addition to the fine.13

• Twenty-eight states reported more severe maximum fines of $500 to 

$5,000 for violating unsecured-load laws and thirteen of those 

states—Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, 

New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West 

Virginia, and Wyoming—include possible jail time in addition to a fine.

Eight of 

these states have maximum fines between $10 and $100 for the first 

offense.

The states of Illinois,14 Virginia,15 and Washington16 have the highest 

maximum fines: $2,500 for Illinois and Virginia, and $5,000 for 

Washington.17

 

13Jail time ranges from no more than 30 days for example in New York, South Dakota, 

and Tennessee—to no more than a year in Georgia, Illinois, Virginia, and Washington.

In addition, the law enforcement officials in all of the seven 

states we selected for interviews stated that additional criminal charges 

could be brought in their state against individuals who injured or killed a 

person as a result of negligently securing their load in addition to the 

specific penalties stated in unsecured-load statutes.

14Illinois Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55).

15Va. Code Ann. § 10.1-1424 and § 46.2-1156. 

16Rev. Code Wash. § 46.61.655.

17Washington became the state with the nation’s highest unsecured load fine following the 

passage of House Bill 1478 known as “Maria’s Law,” for a young woman who was injured 

during a 2004 accident caused by road debris. Maria’s Law criminalized the failure to 

properly secure a load. A person who causes an injury or death by failing to secure a load 

in the state can be charged with a gross misdemeanor and faced with a year in jail and a 

$5,000 fine.

States Have Punitive 

Measures of Varying 

Degrees, Including Fines 

of $10 to $5,000 and 

Possible Imprisonment
 

Page 16 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Figure 4: State Punitive Measures for Violating Unsecured-Load Laws, 2012

Enforcement officials in some states told us that it is often difficult to write 

citations for unsecured-load violations. In five of the seven states, officials 

we interviewed noted that statutory language can be ambiguous, or 

require law enforcement officials either to witness the unsecured load 

falling or have the load actually fall to the ground to be considered a 

statutory violation. This language makes law enforcement respond 

reactively rather than proactively. All seven enforcement officials we 

interviewed told us they were not aware how anyone could distinguish 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

between citations written for commercial vehicles (i.e., used for business 

purposes) and non-commercial vehicles (i.e., private vehicles used to 

move personal belongings or take trash to the local landfill for example) 

as written in their states. Therefore, counting violations of their states’ 

unsecure load laws specifically for non-commercial vehicles is not 

currently possible.

Ten of the 50 states and the District of Columbia reported they have a 

safety or education program that pertains to unsecured loads on noncommercial vehicles. Those states include California, Illinois, Maine, 

North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, 

Washington, and Wisconsin. Enforcement officials in all of the seven 

states we selected for interviews stated that in their experience, 

education—teaching drivers about the importance of properly securing 

the load in any vehicle or trailer before driving—is the key component to 

reducing unsecured-load incidents. See appendix V for examples of 

safety education materials from North Carolina and Washington.

We provided a draft of this report to NHTSA for review and comment. 

NHTSA provided technical comments that were incorporated as 

appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of NHTSA, the 

Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and interested 

Congressional Committees. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff has 

any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or 

FlemingS@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in 

appendix VI. 

Susan Fleming

Director, Physical Infrastructure

Some States Have 

Programs for Educating 

the Public about 

Unsecured Loads

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 18 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

This report examines (1) efforts the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) has undertaken to monitor crashes involving 

vehicles carrying unsecured loads and (2) existing state laws, 

exemptions, and punitive measures regarding non-commercial vehicles 

carrying unsecured loads. For the purposes of our review, we defined 

unsecured load to include a load or part of a load in transit that is not 

properly restrained, tied down, or secured with tarps, nets, or ropes to 

reasonably prevent a portion from falling off. We defined non-commercial 

vehicles to include passenger vehicles (cars or light trucks) transported 

for non-commercial purposes, and the towing of loads in an open trailer 

behind the passenger vehicle. Light trucks included trucks of 10,000 

pounds gross vehicle weight rating or less, including pickups, vans, truckbased station wagons, and utility vehicles. Open trailers included trailers 

that can be obtained from personal or commercial sources, such as UHaul, but used for non-commercial purposes. NHTSA collects data on 

crashes involving non-commercial and commercial crashes. We obtained 

NHTSA’s input in developing these definitions.

To identify efforts NHTSA has undertaken to monitor crashes involving 

vehicles carrying unsecured loads, we obtained documents from and 

conducted interviews with NHTSA officials to obtain information on 

NHTSA’s current policies, procedures, and practices for monitoring 

crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads. Specifically, we 

obtained information about what data on unsecured loads NHTSA 

currently collects; how NHTSA coordinates with state agencies on its data 

collection efforts; actions NHTSA has taken to date or plans to take to 

improve its data collection processes in response to its mandate; and 

challenges, if any, that NHTSA faces in improving its data on vehicles 

carrying unsecured loads. In addition, we conducted a literature search to 

identify and review relevant studies, reports, and available data on 

crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads and to gain a better 

understanding of the magnitude of the problem. Finally, we analyzed 

NHTSA’s crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 

and the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates 

System (NASS GES) to identify the number of crashes in 2010 in which a 

vehicle struck falling or shifting cargo or an object lying in the roadway. 

We assessed the reliability of these data sources by, among other things, 

interviewing NHTSA officials and reviewing NHTSA policies and 

procedures for maintaining the data and verifying their accuracy. Based 

on this information, we determined that the data provided to us were 

sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 19 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

To identify existing state laws, exemptions, and punitive measures 

regarding non-commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads, we 

conducted a literature review of and legal research on state(s) laws, 

penalties, and exemptions regarding properly securing loads on noncommercial vehicles. In addition, we conducted a survey of all 50 states 

and the District of Columbia to supplement, verify, and corroborate data 

obtained from our legal research and to obtain additional information on 

penalties, enforcement actions and education and prevention efforts in 

each state. (The survey is reproduced in appendix II.) The survey was 

completed primarily by law enforcement officers in each state’s 

Department of Public Safety. We selected three states in which to 

conduct pretests: Iowa, New Mexico, and Washington. In each pretest, 

we provided the state police official with a copy of our draft survey, asked 

this individual to complete it, and then conducted an interview to discuss 

the clarity of each question. On the basis of the feedback from the three 

pretests we conducted, we made changes to the content and format of 

the survey questions as appropriate. We launched our survey on June 20, 

2012. We received completed responses from the 51 survey respondents 

for a response rate of 100 percent. We reviewed survey responses for 

inaccuracies or omissions, analyzed the data, and have presented the 

key findings in this report.

We also conducted interviews with state police officials in seven states to 

collect information on enforcement actions and education and prevention 

efforts related to properly securing loads carried by non-commercial 

vehicles. We selected states that were (1) geographically diverse, (2) of 

varying sizes, and (3) varied in the types of laws related to noncommercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads. Using these criteria, we 

interviewed state police officials in California, Colorado, Maryland, New 

York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. In addition, we also conducted 

interviews with associations and individuals active in highway safety 

issues, to obtain additional information on issues related to unsecured 

loads and efforts by states to deal with these issues. Interviewees 

included the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic 

Safety and one of the co-authors of a 2004 study for this foundation 

examining the safety impacts of vehicle-related road debris;1

 

1

American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety, The Safety Impact of 

Vehicle- Related Road Debris (Washington, D.C.: June 2004).

the 

Governor’s Highway Safety Association; and the Transportation Cargo 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 20 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Safety Organization. We also requested interviews with the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police, American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials, and the American Association of Motor 

Vehicle Administrators; these organizations replied that they did not have 

information on unsecured-loads issues.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2012 to November 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Survey Questions

Page 21 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Appendix II: Survey Questions
Appendix II: Survey Questions

Page 22 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads
Appendix III: Current FARS and NASS GES 

Data Category Definitions and Planned 2013 

Changes 

Page 23 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Data categorya How data category is defined currently

How data category will be defined 

starting in 2013

Data categories that apply to objects set in motion, striking another vehicle, person, or property

Motor Vehicle In-Transport Strikes or 

is Struck by Cargo or Objects Set-inMotion from/by Another Motor Vehicle 

In-Transportb

 

Used when cargo on or parts from a motor 

vehicle are set in motion or an object in the road 

is struck by a motor vehicle and set in motion. In 

both cases, the cargo, parts, or object then 

strike another motor vehicle.

Scenario A: A mattress transported by, or a 

hubcap from, vehicle 1 becomes dislodged and 

is set in motion. The mattress or hubcap flies 

into and strikes vehicle 2.

Scenario B: Vehicle 1 hits a tree branch or a 

hubcap from an unknown source in the 

roadway, and sets it in motion striking vehicle 2. 

No Change.*

*Although NHTSA will continue to code both scenarios A and B in the above data category, it will now distinguish between 

the two scenarios, using the additional data categories described below.

Cargo/Vehicle Parts Set-In-Motion Used for all set-in-motion crashes described 

above. 

Revised: Will now be used only for scenario 

A (crashes where the object set in motion 

was originally cargo on, or parts from, a 

moving motor vehicle and this object strikes 

another vehicle, person or property causing 

injury or damage).

Other Object Set-In-Motion Not a current category. New: Will be used for scenario B (crashes 

where the object set in motion was not 

originally cargo on or parts from a moving 

motor vehicle or it is unknown whether the 

object was the cargo or a part of an intransport motor vehicle. In either case, the 

object strikes another motor vehicle, person 

or property causing injury or damage).

Data categories that apply to vehicles striking objects already in the road that may or may not have come from another 

vehicle

Motor Vehicle in Transport Strikes an 

Object That Is Not Fixed

Used for crashes wherein a motor vehicle 

strikes any non-fixed object, such as a mattress 

or a tree branch, lying in the roadway.

Scenario C: Vehicle hits a tree branch already 

in the roadway.

Scenario D: Vehicle hits a mattress already in 

the roadway.

Revised: Will be used only for scenario C 

(when a motor vehicle strikes a non-fixed 

object already at rest in the roadway but 

known to have not come from a motor 

vehicle, or unknown if it came from a motor 

vehicle).

Appendix III: Current FARS and NASS GES 

Data Category Definitions and Planned 2013 

Changes 
Appendix III: Current FARS and NASS GES 

Data Category Definitions and Planned 2013 

Changes

Page 24 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Data categorya How data category is defined currently

How data category will be defined 

starting in 2013

Motor Vehicle in Transport Strikes an 

Object That Fell From a Motor 

Vehicle In-Transport 

Not a current data category. New: Will be used for scenario D (when a 

motor vehicle strikes a non-fixed object 

already at rest in the road but known to have 

been the cargo or part of another motor 

vehicle in-transport). 

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA information.

a

The data categories in this table are formally known as data attributes and are used to categorize 

data entries in NHTSA’s FARS and NAS GES data systems. 

b

This definition also includes persons (in addition to cargo or other objects) set in motion from or by 

another motor vehicle, although NHTSA officials explained that incidents involving people in this type 

of scenario are rare. 
Appendix IV: Non-Commercial UnsecuredLoad Laws, Exemptions, and Fines or 

Penalties or Both 

Page 25 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

State Unsecured-load law Unsecured-load law exemptions 

Unsecured-load violation 

fines/penalties (& separate penalty 

statute if not contained in 

unsecured-load law) 

Alabama Ala. Code 32-5-76 Motor vehicles carrying agricultural loads. Not more than $500. 

Alaska Alaska Stat Sec. 

46.06.080

Motor vehicles carrying agricultural, 

mining, and timber, vehicles applying salt 

or sand to gain traction, or public vehicles 

cleaning or maintaining the highway. 

Not more than $1000 and litter pickup.

Arizona A.R.S. 28-1098 Motor vehicles carrying agricultural loads, 

cleaning or maintaining the highway or 

dropping sand for traction, minor pieces of 

agricultural materials such as leaves and 

stems from agricultural loads.

$250–$1000.

Arkansas A.C.A. 27-35-110 Motor vehicles depositing sand for traction 

or water for cleaning or maintaining the 

highway. 

$100 Arkansas Code Annotated §5-4-

201.

California Cal. Veh. Code 23114 Motor vehicles carrying clear water or live 

bird feathers. 

$211 ($146 fine plus $30 security fee 

and $35 conviction assessment) 

California Rules of Court; Rule 4.102, 

January 2010 Edition. 

Colorado C.R.S. 42-4-1407 Motor vehicles dropping material for 

traction or for cleaning or maintaining the 

roadway. Vehicles operating entirely in a 

marked construction zone, vehicles 

involved in maintenance of public roads 

during snow or ice removal operations, 

vehicles involved in emergency operations 

when requested by a law enforcement 

agency or an emergency response 

authority.

$150–$300 and/or 10-90 days 

imprisonment. C.R.S. 42-4-1701.

Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-271 Farming vehicles, motor vehicles dropping 

sand for traction or water for maintaining 

roadway.

$117–$158.

Delaware Del. C.Title 21 § 4371 None. First offense not less than $10 and no 

more than $28.75 and for each 

subsequent offense, no less than 

$28.75 and no more than $100.

District of Columbia DCMR Title 18,

§ 2503

Motor vehicles dropping sand for the 

purpose of securing traction, or water or 

other substance sprinkled on the roadway 

in cleaning or maintaining the roadway.

$150–$250.

Appendix IV: Non-Commercial UnsecuredLoad Laws, Exemptions, and Fines or 

Penalties or Both
Appendix IV: Non-Commercial UnsecuredLoad Laws, Exemptions, and Fines or 

Penalties or Both 

Page 26 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

State Unsecured-load law Unsecured-load law exemptions 

Unsecured-load violation 

fines/penalties (& separate penalty 

statute if not contained in 

unsecured-load law) 

Florida Fla. Stat. § 316.520 Farming vehicles traveling locally or 

vehicles dropping sand for traction or 

water for cleaning or maintaining the road.

$200 Fla. Stat. § 318.18, license 

suspension with second offense. Any 

person who willfully violates the 

provisions of this section which offense 

results in serious bodily injury or death 

to an individual within the confines of 

statute is also subject to fines of no 

more than $500 and prison for not 

more than 60 days;

§ 775.082 and § 775.083.

Georgia O.C.G.A. § 40-6-254 and 

§ 40-6-248.1 

Motor vehicles carrying agricultural, 

vehicles transporting agriculture or farm 

products. 

Up to $1000 and/or jail time not to 

exceed 1 year.

O.C.G.A. § 17-10-3.

Hawaii HRS § 291C-131 Agricultural vehicles, vehicles carrying 

birds with feathers, and vehicles carrying 

rocks, sand, or gravel.

$250 - $1000 + suspension of license 

(dependent on number of offenses).

Idaho Idaho Code § 49-613 Vehicles that are government, quasigovernment, their agents or employees or 

contractors thereof, in performance of 

maintenance or construction of a highway; 

vehicles owned by canal companies, 

irrigation districts, drainage districts or 

their boards of control, lateral ditch 

associations, water districts or other 

irrigation water delivery or management 

entities, or operated by any employee or 

agent of such an entity, performing 

construction, operation or maintenance of 

facilities; and vehicles transporting 

agricultural products..

$67.

Illinois § 625 ILCS 5/15-109 and

§ 625 ILCS 5/15-109.1

Motor vehicles dropping sand for traction 

or water for cleaning the highway, or 

agricultural vehicles.

For 109: $120, Class A Misdemeanor, 

Illinois Supreme Court Rules, Rule 

526. A conviction for this could result in 

a determinate sentence of 

imprisonment of less than one year or 

a fine not to exceed $2,500 for each 

offense or the amount specified in the 

offense, whichever is greater, may be 

imposed. Illinois Unified Code of 

Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55). For 

109.1: Not to exceed $250. 

Indiana Indiana Code § 9-20-18-

14 and § 9-21-8-48

Motor vehicles transporting poultry or 

spreading sand/de-icing (removing ice). 

Up to $500 Indiana Code

§ 34-28-5-4. 

Iowa Iowa Code § 321.460 Motor vehicles carrying hay or stover

(stalks and leaves, of corn); or sand for 

traction or water for maintaining roadway.

$200 Iowa Code § 805.8A.
Appendix IV: Non-Commercial UnsecuredLoad Laws, Exemptions, and Fines or 

Penalties or Both 

Page 27 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

State Unsecured-load law Unsecured-load law exemptions 

Unsecured-load violation 

fines/penalties (& separate penalty 

statute if not contained in 

unsecured-load law) 

Kansas K.S.A. § 8-1906 Motor vehicles hauling livestock or 

spreading substances in highway 

maintenance or construction.

Not to exceed $500 K.S.A. § 8-1901.

Kentucky KRS § 189.150 None. $20–$100 KRS § 189.990 

Louisiana La. R.S. § 32:383 Motor vehicles dropping sand to secure 

traction, or dropping a liquid substance on 

a highway to clean or maintain.

$500 and/or 6 months jail time.

Maine 29-A M.R.S. § 2396 Motor vehicles carrying hay, straw, vines, 

cornstalks, or grain.

$150–$500.

 

Maryland MD Transportation Code 

Ann. § 24-106; § 24-106.1

Motor vehicles carrying agricultural 

products and those dropping materials to 

provide traction or clean the highway.

$500. 

Massachusetts ALM GL Ch. 85 § 36 Motor vehicles dropping sand for the 

purpose of securing traction, or sprinkling 

of water or other substance on such a way 

in cleaning or maintaining the same.

$50–$200. 

Michigan MCL § 257.720 Highway maintenance vehicles engaged 

in ice or snow removal. Agricultural and 

horticultural vehicles. 

Not more than $500 and/or 90 days jail 

time.

Minnesota Minn. Stat. § 169.81 Motor vehicles carrying agricultural 

products such as small grains, shelled

corn, soybeans, or other farm produce, or 

vehicles dropping material for traction or 

cleaning.

Not more than $300 Minn. Stat. § 

169.89.

Mississippi Miss. Code Ann.

§ 63-5-55

Motor vehicles dropping material for 

traction or for cleaning or maintaining the 

highway.

Not more than $500 and not more than 

6 months imprisonment or both. Miss. 

Code Ann. § 63-5-7, 63-9-11.

Missouri R.S.Mo. § 307.010 None. Not to exceed $300 R.S.Mo. § 

560.016.

Montana Mont. Code Anno., § 61-8-

370

Commercial motor vehicles in compliance 

with state and federal laws; agricultural 

vehicles; vehicles performing road 

maintenance or in a marked construction 

zone.

No more than $500

Mont. Code Anno., § 61-8-711. 

Nebraska R.R.S. Neb. § 60-6, 304 None. $100 - $500 R.R.S. Neb. § 28-106.

Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 

484D.850

Motor vehicles dropping materials for 

traction or cleaning the highway.

Fines are addressed and set by 

individual courts, for example in Reno 

it’s $403.

New Hampshire RSA 266:72 Local farmers, transportation of heavy 

scrap or crushed vehicles, or construction 

vehicles in a construction zone, vehicles 

driving at less than 30 mph.

Fines are addressed and set by 

individual courts.

New Jersey N.J. Stat. § 39:4-77 Agricultural vehicles. Not more than $500 for each violation.
Appendix IV: Non-Commercial UnsecuredLoad Laws, Exemptions, and Fines or 

Penalties or Both 

Page 28 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

State Unsecured-load law Unsecured-load law exemptions 

Unsecured-load violation 

fines/penalties (& separate penalty 

statute if not contained in 

unsecured-load law) 

New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-7-407 Agricultural vehicles or those dropping 

sand for traction or water for cleaning the 

roadway.

$100 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-7-401; § 66-

8-116.

New York NY CLS Veh. & Tr.

§ 377 

None. $100 - $750 and/or imprisonment up to 

30 days.

North Carolina N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-116 Motor vehicles dropping material for 

traction or cleaning the highway.

$100 N.C. Gen. Stat. §20-176.

North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code, § 39-21-

44.1

Motor vehicles dropping sand for traction 

or water for highway maintenance.

$20. 

Ohio ORC Ann. 4513.31 Agricultural and garbage vehicles or those 

dropping sand for traction or water for 

cleaning the roadway. 

$150 - $1000 ORC Ann. 2929.28; ORC 

Ann. 4513.99. 

Oklahoma 47 Okl. St. § 14-105 Agricultural vehicles or those dropping 

sand for traction or water for cleaning the 

roadway.

$5 - $500 or imprisonment for up to 6 

months, or both. 47 Okl. St. § 17-101.

Oregon ORS § 818.300; 818.310 No exemptions for vehicles, just for certain 

roads, private thoroughfares.

$260 ORS § 818.300(4) and ORS § 

153.019. Additionally, owners or 

drivers are liable for all damage done 

as a result of the violation if it occurs 

on certain roadways. ORS § 818.410.

Pennsylvania 75 Pa.C.S. § 4903 Logging and garbage trucks, the shedding 

or dropping of feathers or other matter 

from vehicles hauling live or slaughtered 

birds or animals, and spreading of any 

substance in highway maintenance or 

construction operations.

$300–$1000.

Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws § 31-25-9; 

R.I. Gen. Laws § 31-25-10

Logging trucks or those carrying wood, 

lumber, or sawmill wastes. Motor vehicles 

dropping sand for traction or water for 

highway maintenance.

$85, R.I. Gen. Laws § 31-41.1-4; $100 

to not more than $500, R.I. Gen. Laws 

§ 31-25-10.

South Carolina S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-

4100

Motor vehicles dropping sand for traction 

or water for highway maintenance. 

Agricultural and timber-related vehicles.

$100.

South Dakota S.D. Codified Laws § 32-

15-18

None. $500 or 30 days in prison or both, S.D. 

Codified Laws § 22-6-2. 

Tennessee Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-7-

109

Vehicles carrying farm produce to the 

market. Vehicles which transport crushed 

stone, fill dirt and rock, soil, bulk sand, 

coal, phosphate muck, asphalt, concrete, 

other building materials, forest products, 

unfinished lumber, agricultural lime. Motor 

vehicles dropping sand for traction or 

water for highway maintenance.

No more than $50 or not more than 30 

days in prison or both. Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 40-35-111.
Appendix IV: Non-Commercial UnsecuredLoad Laws, Exemptions, and Fines or 

Penalties or Both 

Page 29 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

State Unsecured-load law Unsecured-load law exemptions 

Unsecured-load violation 

fines/penalties (& separate penalty 

statute if not contained in 

unsecured-load law) 

Texas Tex. Transp. Code § 

725.021

None. $25–$500 Tex. Transp. Code § 

725.003. 

Utah Utah Code Ann. § 72-7-

409

Vehicles carrying dirt, sand, gravel, rock 

fragments, pebbles, crushed base, 

aggregate, any other similar material, or 

scrap metal. Certain agricultural loads and 

vehicles spreading any substance 

connected with highway maintenance, 

construction, securing traction or snow 

removal.

$100–$250. 

Vermont 23 V.S.A. § 1451 and § 

1454 

None. $99 –$156 § 1454.

Virginia Va. Code Ann. § 10.1-

1424 and § 46.2-1156

Motor vehicles dropping material for 

traction or for cleaning or maintaining the 

highway. § 10.1-1424. Motor vehicles 

used exclusively for agricultural purposes, 

or transporting forest products, poultry, or 

livestock. § 46.2-1156.

Not more than $2,500 or not more than 

12 months in jail for violating § 10.1-

1424, and a fine of not more than $250 

for violating § 46.2-1156.

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-11.

Washington Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) 

§ 46.61.655

Vehicles carrying gravel, sand, and dirt if 6 

inches of freeboard is maintained within 

the bed. Motor vehicles dropping sand for 

traction.

Up to $5000 or up to a year in jail or 

both. Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 

9A.20.021.

West Virginia W. Va. Code § 17C-17-6 Motor vehicles dropping material for 

traction or for cleaning or maintaining the 

highway.

Up to $500 fine or 6 months 

imprisonment or both. W. Va. Code § 

17C-18-1. 

Wisconsin Wis. Stat. § 348.10 None. $10–$200 Wis. Stat.

§ 348.11.

Wyoming Wyo. Stat. § 31-5-228 Motor vehicles spreading substance for 

maintaining or constructing the highway.

Up to $500 fine or 6 months 

imprisonment or both. Wyo. Stat. § 31-

5-1201.

Source: GAO analysis of state laws, exemptions, fines and penalties.
Appendix V: “Secure Your Load” Educational 

Materials for Non-Commercial Vehicles 

Page 30 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Figure 5: North Carolina Department of Transportation

Appendix V: “Secure Your Load” Educational 

Materials for Non-Commercial Vehicles
Appendix V: “Secure Your Load” Educational 

Materials for Non-Commercial Vehicles 

Page 31 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Figure 6: Washington State Department of Ecology
Appendix V: “Secure Your Load” Educational 

Materials for Non-Commercial Vehicles 

Page 32 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Figure 7: Washington State Department of Licensing
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 33 GAO-13-24 Unsecured Loads

Susan Fleming, 202-512-2834, FlemingS@GAO.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Judy Guilliams-Tapia (Assistant 

Director), Margaret Bartlett, David Hooper, Maren McAvoy, Maria 

Mercado, Amy Rosewarne, Beverly Ross, Kelly Rubin, and Andrew 

Stavisky made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(541092)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.