RECORD OF DECISIONS

In Attendance:

CCMTA - L. Pelletier - Co-Chairm CCMTA (Harmonization-Committee) - S. McAlister - Secretary, Caristrap International Inc. - C. Auger, TTMA - D. Bixler, Railine/AAR - J. Blackman, California Trucking Assoc. - L. Blood, Canadian Pulp and Paper Assoc. - D. Church, Ministère des Transports du Quebec - G. Desrosiers, California Highway Patrol - S. Dowling, Domtar Paper - A. Durocher, Georgia Pacific - S. Edge, NRI Industries - D. Everest,l Alcan Oswego - S. Falise, Allegheny Industrial Associates - T. Feltault, Shippers Paper Products - J. Howlett, National Transportation Safety Board - P. Kotowski, Crosby Group Inc. - C. Lucas, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) - M. Mattia, Alcan / Aluminum Assoc. - B. Moore, British Columbia - R. Oldridge, Alberta Transportation & Utilities -H. Parenteau, CCMTA - J. Pearson, Georgia Pacific Corp -R. Pugh, Columbus McKinnon Corp. - R. Reynolds, New York (DOT) - N. Schneider, Canadian Assoc. of Recycling Industries - L. Shaw, Chaparral Steel - D. Starosta, American Trucking Association - L. Strawhorn, FHWA (OMCHS) - N. Thomas, National Transportation Safety Board - G. Van Etten, EIA / WASTEC - N. Wall

1. Introduction

Ms. Pelletier welcomed participants to Albuquerque for the final meeting. She noted government and industry had reviewed the research results and were working to develop a standard which could be implemented uniformly in Canada, the United States and hopefully Mexico. She noted Mr. Campbell, the other Co-Chair, would be unable to participate in this meeting due to a conflict with the CVSA Executive Committee but had indicated he would Co-Chair future meetings of the Implementation Committee.

It was noted the diminished number of participants might indicate the majority of outstanding issues had been addressed by Draft 3 of the standard. It was also noted while this may be the last meeting of the Harmonization Committee it would not be the end of the consultative process. Further opportunities would be provided to stakeholders to comment on the standard as it moved through the formal rulemaking process in Canada and the United States. A general round of introductions was made.

2. Adoption of Agenda

The agenda was adopted with the addition of an update from WASTEC under item 5.d.

3. Adoption of Record of Decisions - October 1-2, 1998 - Rochester, New York

The Record of Decisions from the October 1-2, 1998 meeting were reviewed and approved

4. North American Cargo Securement Model Regulation - Draft 3 - January 1999

Mr. Pearson provided a general overview of the research and cargo securement standard harmonization initiative. The purpose of the Standards Harmonization Committee was to review the research results and to develop a new performance based standard which could be uniformly implemented throughout North America. The performance criteria were outlined and it was noted these criteria would serve as the test for anyone wishing to introduce new cargo securement methods. Mr. Pearson provided an overview of the physics which had been incorporated into the standard. The importance of correct tension and the angles which must be used to properly secure cargo was emphasized. The distinction between direct and indirect tiedowns and the differences in the way they work was outlined. The schedule for completion of the Project was also reviewed.

a) Review of Revisions since October 1998

Mr. Pearson provided a summary of the comments which had been made on Draft 2 of the standard. He noted Draft 3 incorporated the minor editorial changes which had been requested to Parts 1 and 2 of the standard. The revisions made were approved by the Committee.

Logs

Mr. Pearson indicated this section had been developed in conjunction with the US and Canadian forestry industry. He noted this section had been restructured as requested by vehicle type. He noted the importance placed by industry that proper equipment must be used. He noted the crowning requirement had generated much comment during the Canadian briefing sessions and a request for an amendment would be considered under item 6. b) of this Record of Decisions. It was noted reference to the automatic tensioning device had been retained but with the understanding the requirement would not be mandatory until sometime after implementation of the standard. The grace period would be developed as part of the mandate of the Implementation Committee.

Discussion focused on the log provisions pertaining to any tiedown having a working load limit not less than 1,800 kg (4,000 lbs), and the wording indicating the aggregate working load limit for all tiedowns securing a stack of logs must be no less than 1/6th the weight of the stack of logs. Clarification was sought on whether these provisions had been designed to prohibit the use of webbing and to mandate chain. It was suggested without further elaboration (i.e.: the role and strength of stakes being specified) this section may confuse many carriers. It was agreed Mr. Pearson would clarify the intent of the language with Messrs. Duncan and Blood. It was agreed the revised language for this section would be approved by the Committee with the caveat that the guide would more clearly spell out the requirements and explain the relationship between the 4,000 lb. and 1/6 provisions in relation to the use of stakes and other restraining devices.

Dressed Lumber

It was noted additional work had been undertaken to further clarify and elaborate on the requirements for this commodity. It was noted the requirement for one chain on the third bundle of a covered stack would be discussed under item 6. b) of this Record of Decisions.

Mr. Pugh indicated the revised draft had addressed the remaining concerns with the requirements. It was suggested the section be renamed "Bundled Building Material". It was suggested this would avoid the situation where people might not realize that other building materials including dressed lumber were covered by the provisions of the section. It was further suggested the cross reference to Section 2 could be deleted. It was noted many other building products including steel and rebar would then be captured by this section instead of the general provisions contained in Section 2. For some commodities (heavy steel plate) the current dressed lumber requirements would not be appropriate or safe. It was suggested the guide should include clarification as to what is covered and provide specific direction on the methods to be used for other building products like plate and rebar. It was agreed this section be approved and discretion would be left to the Drafting Group to rename the section. Mr. Church indicated the CPPA could support this section as drafted though some members may still have problems with some provisions.

Paper Rolls

Mr. Pearson noted this section had been subject to multiple discussions between government and industry stakeholders. He suggested very good progress had been made by the Drafting Group and the industry stakeholders to finalize the requirements. Mr. Edge indicated he believed the standard was almost complete and subject to further editorial corrections and clarifications should be approved by the Committee.

Mr. Pearson outlined the major revisions pertaining to the paper roll section. Editorial provisions had been added to recognize vehicle structure, banding and other cargo as blocking mechanisms. A revised provision for tipping would be added. The criteria for requiring bracing against tipping would be modified for rolls restrained against forward movement by friction mats. The width to diameter ratio would be increased from 1.25 to 1.75 for this situation. In other scenarios the 1.25 ratio would be retained. In addition, a provision would be added to require a blocking roll to be raised by 1.5 inches (instead of 2") to permit use of nominal 2" x 4" lumber. For paper rolls with the eyes horizontal crosswise it was noted a couple of options would be added for blocking of rolls on the upper tier. A section would also be added to recognize transport on flat bed trailers and curtain sided vehicles. This section would be split into two sections by orientation of the eyes of the paper rolls.

Committee members indicated support for the revisions. It was agreed Mr. Pearson would work with industry stakeholders to further clarify the provisions relative to the height and width diameters as these were still not clear to some participants. It was agreed additional material would be included in the guide to elaborate on these provisions. It was agreed the revised paper roll section would be approved with the changes noted above.

Metal Coils

Mr. Pearson noted the language for metal coils had remained essentially unchanged from the provisions which had been approved by the Committee at the last meeting.

Mr. Strawhorn indicated a number of ATA members had called him to discuss the provisions contained in Draft 3. Concern had been expressed there is no leeway for carriers to meet all of the angles called out for tiedown devices. It was suggested the final rule or guide should provide a certain latitude for these requirements. Concern had also been expressed as to whether the chains would tighten properly and would be resistant to wear given they would be in contact with each other. Some ATA members had questioned whether 24 chains were really necessary for eight palletized eye vertical coils. A further practical problem had been identified relative to master coils (50,000 lbs.). Cargo securement chains are normally sold in 20 foot lengths. Longer chains, which may increase the potential for personal injury, will be required to meet the requirements for large coils given the absence of sufficient anchor points or stake pockets. While he acknowledged the standard provisions had been tested in controlled situations he noted there was no guarantee they are practical in actual operations. He suggested the new requirements be subject to a test program by users. The concerns were noted by Committee members and it was suggested the Implementation Committee be tasked with addressing any documented compliance problems which emerge.

Mr. Moore indicated a number of previously approved changes to the standard had been omitted in Draft 3. He noted a reference to friction mats under 3.3.2.1 and the language for blocking from a previous draft under 3.3.5 were missing. He further suggested a couple of minor editorial changes to clarify the requirements. After a brief discussion It was agreed the editorial changes would be approved and the original language from Draft 2 for section 3.3.5 would be reinstated.

Flattened / Crushed Vehicles

Mr. Pearson indicated since the last meeting the Drafting Group had met twice with representatives of ISRI and CARI on the flattened/crushed vehicles section of the standard. Draft 3 had been reorganized into three sections. The nomenclature flattened vehicles had been added along with provisions which prohibit the use of synthetic webbing for securing vehicles, while permitting synthetic webbing for containment of loose parts. Language had also been included relating to the use of structural walls, sides or sideboards, or suitable covering material, alone or in combination to contain loose parts. He noted these changes had been requested by the industry. He noted ISRI/CARI had undertaken to prepare a loading and preparation guideline for possible reference in the North American standard.

b) Flattened or Crushed Vehicles - Industry Perspectives and Presentation

Mr. Mattia provided participants with an overview of the work which had been completed by members of his industry with the Drafting Group. He reported progress had been made to redraft the flattened vehicles section pursuant to suggestions from his members. He distributed a series of suggested revisions to the section along with material on a proposed preparation and loading guideline. He indicated ISRI and CARI members were seeking to have this guideline referenced in the North American Standard as an alternate containment method to prevent the loss of material during the transport of flattened vehicles.

Mr. Mattia indicated, in the absence of a recognized standard, the Drafting Group had not been prepared to accept flattened vehicles preparation and loading procedures as an alternative to physical containment. Consequently members of his industry had worked to develop the guideline based on tested and proved methods currently being used. He suggested the guideline provides objective criteria for enforcement officers to determine whether a vehicle has been properly prepared for transport. He noted that, if approved, further work would be undertaken by ISRI/CARI to develop the requirements and the educational materials to make the requirement enforceable at roadside.

The Committee discussed the proposal. Concerns were expressed that the guideline was not adequately developed and had not been approved as an industry wide practice or standard. It was noted the guideline set a very high performance objective for quality assurance. Some participants suggested the guideline was more appropriate to an ISO standard as opposed to recognized and adopted industry standards (i.e.: RP 47, ANSI, SAE).

Information was sought on the current processes used for flattened vehicles. Mr. Mattia acknowledged many current industry members would not use the requirements of the guideline and would opt for either sideboards and/or a cover. It was noted the flattened vehicle industry members also had concerns relative to the current sideboard and cover options indicating they were not well developed or widely used.

Some members indicated the concept proposed by ISRI/CARI should be encouraged as it was consistent with the performance based approach which had been adopted with other sections of the standard. The carrier representatives indicated they would be hesitant to have drivers certify the shipper had completed the procedures outlined in the guideline. Enforcement representatives noted officers would have a difficult time being able to distinguish between flattened vehicles that had been prepared and loaded according to the guidelines and those which had not. Concern was expressed on the liability issues related to being able to confirm whether the process had been followed.

A lengthy discussion ensued on possible wording changes to the text of Draft 3. The Chair requested the government members meet over lunch to develop wording which would address the competing viewpoints.

The Chair reported no consensus had been achieved over the lunch period by the government members. She indicated it was her view that it was unlikely consensus could be achieved through further discussion as fundamental differences still existed with some members indicating the guideline was not a standard (i.e.: industry approved). She was concerned that many other items needed to be reviewed and approved by the Committee in the time remaining. As such it was indicated the current wording of this section would be retained and a reference to the guideline would not be included in the standard at this time.

It was noted there would be other opportunities over the next year to comment on the proposed North American Cargo Securement Standard and to suggest changes; either through the consultative process to be followed in the US or at a future meeting of the Implementation Committee.

Mr. Mattia indicated he believed this decision called into question the consensus-building process which had been adopted for the standard. He noted the industry did not support the standard as currently drafted. He noted he had requested that it be made clear during the recent Canadian briefing sessions that ISRI/CARI did not support the proposed standard. He concluded by indicating the securement requirements as contained in Model Regulation - Draft 3 are not currently used by the majority of industry.

The Chair indicated the Record of Decisions would reflect ISRI/CARI did not support the section as drafted. Mr. McAlister reported that ISRI and CARI’s concerns had been outlined at each of the Canadian briefing sessions, along with reference to work being undertaken by ISRI/CARI to develop a preparation and loading guideline as a containment option.

5. Update on Related Standards - Marking and Rating

a) Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) - RP 47

Mr. Bixler provided participants with an overview of Recommended Practice 47 noting the TTMA Board had approved the revised standard on April 25, 1999. He noted the standard would apply to platform and van trailers with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) not exceeding 100,000 lbs. (45,455 kg.). He noted the standard does not cover pole trailers or trailers designed to transport livestock or bulk commodities. He outlined for participants the marking and rating provisions which would apply to trailers and the performance tests for anchor points, front-end structures, side walls, winch mounting, pockets, and pipe spools. He concluded his presentation by indicating some minor editorial revisions would be made and the final version of RP 47 would be issued during the next month.

Participant discussion focused on the testing thresholds for bulkheads and side walls. Mr. Bixler indicated for bulkheads (4 foot or less) the test protocol required a uniform load up to 50% of the maximum cargo weight capacity, or 30,000 lbs whichever is less. For front-end structures in excess of 4 feet the test protocol required a uniform load to 40% of the maximum cargo weight capacity, or 30,000 lbs. whichever is less. The testing protocol for side walls was described with some participants suggesting the values were quite low. Mr. Bixler indicated manufacturers would rate and mark based on the capacity of the walls which could be much higher. It was noted with respect to cargo securement components testing would be conducted and the Working Load Limit would be established at 1/3 of the breaking strength consistent with other provisions in the North American Cargo Securement Standard. It was noted marking and rating labels would be permanently affixed to the trailers providing the rating for front-end structures, side walls and anchor points.

Discussion turned to the effective date of RP 47 which had been set by TTMA members for January 1, 2002. Mr. Bixler indicated it would require this much time for all the TTMA member companies to complete the testing and marking requirements. A number of participants indicated it would be desirable if the recommended practice was implemented for the June 2000 date for implementation of the North American Cargo Securement Standard. Mr. Bixler suggested some companies would meet this date while others would require further time. He undertook to communicate the Committee desire for RP 47 to be implemented at the same time as the Standard. It was agreed a copy of the completed recommended practice would be provided to the Secretariat so the correct references could be made in the North American Standard. Ms. Pelletier on behalf of all participants thanked Mr. Bixler and the TTMA members for their timely and dedicated work in revising RP 47 to include the marking and rating provisions.

b) Web Sling & Tiedown Association (WSTDA) - Interior Van Specification

Mr. Lucas provided an overview of the work which had been undertaken by the WSTDA to finalize the interior van specification standard. It was noted previous standards related to webbing, winches and tiedowns had been previously reviewed and endorsed by the Committee. Mr. Lucas briefly outlined the contents of the interior van standard noting there were sections covering construction, testing, marking and rating requirements. In addition sections had been added to cover proper use, environmental, inspection, repair and replacement guidelines. It was noted the final interior van specification standard would be ratified and released by September 1999.

Committee members seeking to provide any final editorial comments on the standard were directed to contact either Mr. Lucas, or the WSTDA (copies of the WSTDA standards can be obtained by contacting WSTDA at 710 East Ogden Avenue, Suite 600, Naperville, Illinois, USA, 60563 Tel: (630) 369-2406, FAX: (630) 369-2488). It was noted the sections pertaining to proper use, environmental, inspection, repair and replacement guidelines would be reviewed by CVSA as part of the process to revise the out-of-service criteria. It was agreed the interior van specification standard would be referenced in the North American Cargo Securement Standard. Mr. Lucas and Mr. Pearson would confirm the appropriate citations were referenced in Part 5. Mr. Lucas noted European standards had been recently updated. He undertook to provide the Secretariat with a copy to determine whether an additional reference should be made in Part 5 to these standards.

Mr. Lucas noted he had requested the Cordage Institute review Draft 3 of the North American Cargo Securement Standard. The Institute had revised the working load limits for rope and were recommending the revised values be referenced in the standard. It was agreed Part 5 be revised to include the latest values provided by the Cordage Institute. Mr. Lucas indicated members of WSTDA were still concerned with the language appearing in section 2.1.6. He noted specific language needed to be added for synthetic webbing tiedowns and to distinguish between components or the assembly. It was agreed Messrs. Lucas and Pearson would review the language and make the appropriate editorial changes to this section of the standard.

The Chair on behalf of the Committee thanked Messrs. Takacs and Lucas and WSTDA members for their hard work in revising the WSTDA standards to reflect the objectives of the North American Cargo Securement Standard.

c) Transport Canada - Regulation 905 - Anchor Points

Mr. Pearson provided an update on this subject noting Transport Canada had republished a Canada Gazette Part 1 Notice requiring anchor points as a safety standard for new vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1999.

Details on the requirements were provided to participants. US participants inquired whether a similar US requirement would be mandated. Mr. Thomas indicated NHTSA had declined to move forward with a similar vehicle manufacturing standard in the US. It was agreed any outstanding reciprocity issues related to differences in manufacturing standards would be addressed as part of the mandate of the Implementation Committee.

d) WASTEC Update

Mr. Wall provided the update noting ANSI standards Z245.1, Z245.30 and Z245.60 were in the final stages of approval. It was noted Z245.1 and Z245.30 contains the language for roll-off and hook lift containers for integral securement and hold down performance. He noted the Z245.60 standard had been approved on March 8, 1999 and would be subject to public comment. He concluded his presentation by indicating it was important to the members of WASTEC that these standards be referenced in the North American Cargo Securement Standard.

Mr. Wall indicated the Committee had agreed at a previous meeting to reference these standards. He noted all three standards would be implemented by the fall of 1999. It was agreed reference would be made to the three ANSI standards in section 5.12 of the North American Cargo Securement Standard. It was further agreed copies of the completed ANSI standards would be provided to the Secretariat so the correct citations could be referenced.

6. Implementation Planning - Canada

a) Consultation Sessions on Proposal - Overview and Summary

Mr. Pearson indicated pursuant to the implementation plan which had been approved by the Committee a series of briefing sessions on Draft 3 had been conducted across Canada. These sessions were organized by government and industry stakeholders to permit broader based consultations to occur. Each government had been requested to determine whether they were prepared to adopt the North American Standard and if not what changes were required to make the standard acceptable. It was noted the proposed standard was generally supported by Canadian agencies and stakeholders. There is broad interest in achieving common securement requirements across North America and support for the concept of adopting the standard by reference.

b) Possible Additions and/or Amendments Required to Proposed Standard

Mr. Pearson proceeded to outline the concerns which had been raised during the briefing sessions noting many of the participants sought information on how to comply with the new requirements. These issues would be addressed in the guide. The major issues which

would impede implementation of the standard in Canada included: the requirement to use chain tiedowns on covered bundles of dressed lumber, the number of tiedowns required on short bundles, mandatory blocking of heavy vehicles or equipment against forward movement, and tarping of loose bulk loads. In addition, Canadian jurisdictions were looking for the inclusion of specific requirements for hay bales and pipe.

For the log section it was noted editorial changes had been suggested relative to the centre of the log being below the top of each stake. In addition, it was suggested the crowning provision be modified so that each of the logs that form the top of the load must be held in place by indirect tiedowns. It was agreed these revisions would be approved.

Discussion turned to the dressed lumber section and the requirement for the use of one chain for covered bundles. It was noted carriers and shippers were aware of the low friction condition and were working to develop solutions which would address this situation. It was noted this problem was also prevalent in the northern states. The issue was whether the provisions be retained or deleted to facilitate implementation. Carriers and shippers would continue work to develop a solution which could subsequently be introduced as an amendment to the standard. It was noted Canadian jurisdictions and stakeholders were recommending the section on covered bundles and the chain provision be removed. The Committee agreed these revisions would be approved.

Discussion turned to the further editorial changes which needed to be made to the paper roll section. Industry representatives indicated they were satisfied with the proposal. Minor editorial revisions would further clarify the principles. Further elaboration of the principles and detailed requirements including loading patterns would be incorporated into the guide.

The Committee reviewed the request for Section 3.8 applying to Heavy Vehicles, Equipment, and Machinery that the mandatory requirement for blocking against forward movement be removed. This change was approved by the Committee.

It was noted no problems had been raised relative to the concrete pipe, intermodal containers or automobiles/light truck sections of the standard. These had already been approved by the Committee previously. For roll-on/roll-off containers it was proposed a minor editing change be made to section 3.10.2 to indicate "blocked against forward movement by the lifting device, stops, a combination of both or other suitable restraint mechanism". The Committee approved this revision.

For Section 3.11 applying to large boulders a clarification was proposed to indicate the section only applies to natural, irregularly shaped boulders. Processed or cut rock can be secured per Part 2. The Committee approved this revision.

The Committee discussed the proposal from Canadian jurisdictions and stakeholders that separate sections be added to Part 3 for hay bales and pipe. There was support that work be undertaken to develop these sections but concern was expressed for the delay this would have on the completion of the standard. The Committee was not prepared to further delay implementation of the standard while awaiting draft provisions for these commodities. It was however agreed these sections would be developed by the Implementation Committee as potential first amendments to the standard. It was agreed in the interim sections would be added in the guide to cover hay bales, pipe and palletized loads (cement/sod).

It was agreed additional definitions and references to appropriate standards would be added to the standard. It was suggested there was a need to develop working load limits for stake pockets, shoring bars, rails and tracks used to secure cargo on trailers. Mr. Bixler indicated it would be difficult to develop working load limits for these components. It was agreed further work in this area would have to be pursued by the Implementation Committee.

It was agreed with the above noted revisions the standard development process would be considered complete. It was agreed Draft 4 would represent the final draft of the model regulation.

c) Next Steps

Ms. Pelletier indicated staff would prepare Draft 4 of the model regulation based on the decisions made at this meeting. The final draft proposal would be placed on the Project web site located at www.ab.org/ccmta/ccmta.html within the next three weeks. She indicated pursuant to the implementation plan and schedule adopted by both countries it would be up to the US to initiate their formal rulemaking process by issuing an NPRM based on Draft 4. She noted in Canada an endorsement for Draft 4 would be sought from CCMTA. She noted based on the Canadian briefing sessions an additional recommendation would be made to the CCMTA Board of Directors that Canadian jurisdictions pursue an adoption by reference approach for the standard. (Secretariat Note: The CCMTA Board endorsed Draft 4 and the request that Canadian jurisdictions pursue an adoption by reference approach for the North American Standard.)

7. Implementation Planning - United States

Mr. Thomas indicated FHWA intended to subject the draft standard to the rulemaking process now that it had been finalized by the Committee. He indicated the Canadian briefing sessions had tended to confirm the view that the standard provided further elaboration and clarification on requirements which already existed in US and Canadian rules.

A brief discussion ensued on when the US Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would be issued. Mr. Thomas suggested the fall was likely in light of other more pressing US rulemaking initiatives. A number of participants suggested the fall release could jeopardize the June 2000 implementation date and would hinder the work of the Training/Education Committee. It was noted the intent had been for the training materials to be developed and delivered six months before the implementation date. Mr. Thomas suggested the June 2000 implementation date was still realistic noting many of the comments which could be raised during the commentary period had already been addressed during the standard development process. He urged participants to comment on the rule when it was issued.

8. Implementation Planning - Mexico

No representative was available from Mexico to speak to this issue. Mr. Thomas indicated he had been advised that Mexico would adopt the standard following approval by Canadian and US agencies.

9. Training and Education Committee Update

a) Overview - Initial Meeting

Mr. Strawhorn provided an overview of this initiative noting the Committee had viewed the development of common training materials as critical to the successful implementation of the North American standard. To this end the Harmonization Committee had approved an initial training plan calling for videos, manuals and pamphlets to be developed on a cost share basis between government and industry. The initial meeting of the Training / Education Committee would be held on May 10, 1999. All participants were invited to attend.

b) Status of Funding

The Secretariat indicated the initial plan called for $200,000 US to be raised from private and public organizations across North America to fund the training/education initiative. The partnership approach will ensure the material is uniform while at the same time keeping the contributions at a reasonable level for all contributors. The Secretariat provided details on the funds collected to date and provided an indication of the funds which had been committed but not yet transferred to CCMTA by the various government and industry stakeholders. All participants were requested to consider making a $5,000 US contribution to this cooperative venture.

It was noted materials could only be developed on the basis of the total funds collected. It was suggested detailed work could not be initiated until governments in both countries had indicated their intention to proceed with the standard. Timely development of materials would be contingent upon commitments being turned into actual funds. It was suggested while the first meeting of the Training/Education Committee would be open it was likely future meetings would be confined solely to the funding partners. It was agreed all participants would review the funding request and advise the Secretariat within six weeks of their desire to participate and the level of funding which will be provided.

c) Practical Guide - Status

Mr. Pearson noted the practical guide was still under development but could be completed in the near future now that the Committee had finalized the draft model standard. He reminded participants the guide would elaborate on requirements contained in the standard and would include the best practices which had been identified during the standard development phase but which were inappropriate for a model regulation. He indicated the guide would be turned over to the Training/Education Committee for further development and completion. This action was endorsed by the Committee.

10. Adjournment

The Chair thanked all the participants for their hard work over the last three years and indicated all participants could take pride in the unique accomplishment of having developed a North American Cargo Securement Standard.

She noted the Standards Harmonization Committee would be disbanded after this meeting with issues relative to maintenance and implementation of the standard being taken up by the Implementation Committee. She noted members on the Harmonization Committee would be welcome to participate in meetings of the Implementation Committee. She noted a small group consisting of FHWA, CVSA, ATA, TTMA, Canadian government representatives, CTA and CTEA would undertake the detailed work relative to implementation of the standard. It was likely a meeting would be convened in the fall of 1999 to assess progress.

She noted this would be her last meeting as she had accepted a new position. She indicated however that Mr. Campbell of CVSA had agreed to Co-Chair the Implementation Committee. Participants expressed their gratitude to Ms. Pelletier, the Drafting Group and CCMTA staff for their hard work throughout the past three years. The meeting was adjourned.