Cargo Securement Standards Harmonization Committee Meeting - April 2, 1996

Omni Waterside Hotel
Norfolk, Virginia

RECORD OF DECISIONS

a) MTO Research Tasks - Preliminary Results

Mr. Billing provided an overview of the research program which was being undertaken by MTO. He indicated MTO was conducting the research on behalf of all the sponsoring agencies through a contract administered by CCMTA. He indicated the objectives of the research was: to determine how parts of load securement systems contribute to the overall capacity of those systems; to demonstrate the adequacy of parts and the overall capacity of load securement systems; and to develop principles based on sound engineering analysis, that could contribute to a revised international standard for load securement for heavy trucks. A brief status report on each element of the research work was provided. He noted all the basic elements and a series of specific commodities had been subjected to testing. He indicated testing had been undertaken on stake pockets, chain in tubes, D-rings, rub rails, welded rods, and tiedowns. It was noted reports were in the process of being prepared and would be turned over to the Committee and the Drafting Group for review upon completion.

A review of the results for D-rings, winches, and stake pockets was provided. Briefly the presentation covered the following points:

A general discussion on the results and the significance for the standards harmonization process ensued. It was noted many of the failures occurred well below the threshold established by Transport Canada in the Canada Gazette Part 1 Notice for anchor points (See Item 6.b). The cost difference between "light" and "heavy-duty rings" was very narrow however there is a significant difference in performance. It was suggested for the standards harmonization initiative the focus of discussion should be on how a rating could be applied for a new product, for one already built, and the conditions to remove from service. It was suggested and agreed during the process it would be useful to have the component and vehicle manufacturers participating in the meetings to discuss some of the results, and to compare the results with quality control testing undertaken by the manufacturers. It was noted the final report on this testing would express general concern about anchors and suggest some guidelines for design and manufacturing of these components. The issue of whether anchor points should be rated and marked was briefly discussed by all participants. It was acknowledged, the point at which this equipment was no longer serviceable would also have to be addressed during the standards harmonization process.

Mr. Billing provided a summary of the results emanating from the tiedown and blocking testing. He noted an attempt had been made to document the effect of binders and chain length on tiedowns. He noted the tests indicate contrary to popular belief that the load never equalizes. He indicated the "pulley effect" was not reflected in the data assembled to date. He responded to a series of questions relative to the data and the implications this would have for the standards harmonization work.

Mr. Billing provided an overview of the results from the various friction tests which were being undertaken as part of the project. He indicated friction may have been a factor underestimated for its ability to ensure loads are secured to vehicles. He indicated a number of skidder/trailer deck combinations have quite high co-efficients of friction. The effect of various contaminants (ie: water, oil, dirt) produced interesting results relative to the co-efficient of friction. He indicated a high friction number generally inhibits load movement. He suggested the Committee would be called upon to evaluate whether friction would be reliable as a means of load securement. He briefly indicated a study was underway with Concordia to evaluate the effect of vibration on friction. The test results would be presented to this group in approximately three months.

b) MTQ/FERIC - Dressed Lumber

Mr. Michaelsen tabled the dressed lumber report and provided an overview of the work and the results. He indicated a total of 127 tests of different configurations had been undertaken through the testing protocols. In presenting the results he indicated load security was observed under static roll conditions, under static pitch conditions, and other dynamic conditions. The objective of this portion of the research was to determine the conditions necessary to secure a load of dressed lumber and to study the capabilities and behaviour of the tiedowns. He indicated results for slippage angles and measured acceleration (g-forces) for various combinations of tiedown tension, number of tiedowns, load deck surface and load configuration were all covered in the report.

In discussion of the results among the Committee members it was indicated the point of slippage for eight foot bundles was acceptable while it was not acceptable in a number of instances for the sixteen foot bundles. Based on the study results Mr. Michaelsen offered the following general conclusions. Friction along the surfaces of contact between the load and its supports would appear to be the principal factor that affects load securement. This was highlighted by the relative performance between the wood and teflon surfaces. Tiedown tension would also appear to have a significant impact on the efficiency of tiedown systems. However, this factor is somewhat difficult to control given the nature of manual winch systems that are presently most commonly used on transport vehicles. Adding additional tiedowns, beyond a certain minimum needed to assure load integrity, would appear to provide only minor improvements in load securement.

Mr. Michaelsen tabled a second report entitled "Slippage Tests with Anti-skid Mats". He noted during the course of the testing a request had been made by Daishowa Forest Products to evaluate anti-skid mats. Given that friction along the surface between the load and its supports appears to be the main factor that effects load security performance a series of additional limited tests were conducted using rubber mats. The mats are designed to increase the coefficient of friction under the load. Mr. Michaelsen indicated two types of rubber mats were tested. An overview of the results was provided. He suggested the mats provided significant benefits in preventing slippage of paper rolls resting directly on the trailer deck. He suggested anti-skid mats may provide an even greater advantage under more severe (ie: wet, icy) conditions. He concluded his presentation by noting the use of anti-skid mats to improve load security appears to hold enough potential to warrant further investigation and study.

Mr. Michaelsen responded to a series of questions relative to the results which were presented. Mr. MacNeill indicated Sunbury had used rubber mats for the past eighteen months and found them very effective in preventing slippage for paper rolls. He queried whether there was any other field experience which should be reviewed by the Committee. Mr. Johnson summarized the work which had been undertaken by the AAR and the recommended practice to use a strap to make the rolls a single unit. Reference was made to the Australian regulations which require that chains be placed through the centre of the rolls. It was noted by the participants this was impractical for loading and unloading the rolls from vehicles. In discussion it was further suggested the walls of a trailer van could not be used for load securement purposes. It was suggested anchor points would be critical for this type of application. It was suggested it would be redundant to require anchor points in all vehicles particularly those used for bulk commodities. The problem of vehicles being used for mixed loads or for other applications other than intended by the original purchaser was briefly discussed.

It was agreed Committee members would review and provide comments on the report to Mr. Michaelsen by June 1, 1996. It was agreed the report would be finalized after this date and the Secretariat would be tasked with arranging distribution.

c) Aluminum Association Research

Mr. Epstein provided an overview of the Aluminum Association noting it was a not for-profit organization made up of the producers of Aluminum products. The Association had become aware of some ambiguities relative to load securement rules. He indicated the Association not only was participating in the CCMTA research project but had also contracted with Professor Perkins of Syracuse University to develop a simulation model for transporting aluminum products. He indicated the model had been completed for sudden braking and turning and additional work was being undertaken to provide Prof. Perkins with some "real" numbers to include in the simulation.

Mr. Moore provided a video presentation and tabled the preliminary results from testing undertaken by Alcan relative to friction of coils on truck decks. He described the tests including the use of palletized loads with two different sizes of coils. He provided the preliminary results noting again the importance of friction relative to load securement. In response to a series of questions Mr. Moore indicated the numbers from this testing would be assembled and will be written up in a report for review by the Drafting and Standards Harmonization Committees.

The Co-Chairs on behalf of the participants thanked Messrs. Billing, Epstein, Michaelsen, and Moore for their detailed presentations. Mr. Fiste indicated he was very impressed with the quality of the research which was being undertaken by theses agencies and indicated the results would facilitate the standard development and harmonization process.

4. Overview of Standard Development Plan

a) Role of Standards Harmonization Committee

Ms. Pelletier presented an overhead outlining the schedule for completion of the research, the development and harmonization of the load securement standard, and the tentative implementation dates. It was noted the bulk of the research would be completed in the next few months with only the metal coil testing being prolonged to November. From the previous presentations she indicated a sufficient amount of research had been completed to initiate the standards harmonization process. She indicated the objective was to take the results emanating from the research and develop a North American load securement standard. She indicated she hoped the Committee would endorse a standard which is written in plain language, cost effective, and based on the research. She noted this type of standard will foster compliance throughout North America. In order to meet the established schedule it was being proposed that two groups be formed to expedite development of the standard.

The first Group would be the Standards Harmonization Committee. She indicated this group would be open to anyone interested in load securement issues and would include all public (government) and private (industry) stakeholders. The primary role of this Committee was to build consensus for a North American standard. She further indicated this group would be responsible for developing an implementation and communication strategy. The Committee would be responsible for undertaking briefings at the higher levels of government in Canada and the United States. The group would meet 1 - 2 times a year alternating between Canada and the United States. The Committee would be tasked with reviewing and discussing each draft of the standard put forward by the Drafting Group.

b) Role of Drafting Group

Mr. Fiste provided an overview of the mandate of the Drafting Group indicating it had purposely been kept small to ensure the rapid production of each draft of a uniform North American standard. He indicated the composition of this group will include representatives from FHWA, Transport Canada, Québec, Ontario and the lead project scientists. He indicated the persons selected to work on the Drafting Group have the technical expertise and knowledge to draft the requirements of the North American load securement standard. The Drafting Group will review existing requirements, all load securement studies, comments submitted by stakeholders, and will prepare a commentary document explaining the rationale for each element of the standard. He indicated Mr. Covello would Chair the group and Mr. Pearson would work as the technical Secretary to the Drafting Group.

The Co-Chairs sought comments from the participants on the process and mandate which was being proposed for the development of the standard. The participants acknowledged it would not be possible for the Standards Harmonization Committee to undertake actual drafting of the standard given the number of participants who would become involved in the process. It was noted other Canadian governments would be participating on the Standards Harmonization Committee recognizing the need for the drafting group to be kept small. A brief discussion ensued on the reporting relationship which would be struck between the two groups. It was suggested all material emanating from the Drafting Group would be reviewed by the Standards Harmonization Group and a full opportunity will be provided to all stakeholders to review and comment on the standard as it was developed (See Item 7).

The issue of whether the Standards Harmonization Committee would function using formal votes was discussed. The logistical problems associated with trying to arrange this were noted, given many of the people and organizations who would be involved in the process would not attend meetings but would instead be submitting their comments by E-Mail or in written form. The Co-Chairs further indicated both CVSA and CCMTA were organizations which worked to develop consensus among the stakeholders and to the extent possible this goal had been set for this process. Participants were reminded that ultimately the agencies responsible for implementation of the standard would have to follow their own formal procedures for comment and ratification and could not be bound by decisions made by Standards Harmonization Committee. The goal of the Committee would be to undertake the broadest form of consultation possible to ensure the highest degree of consensus emerged from the process to facilitate the uniform implementation of the standard by jurisdictions.

It was noted there was an expectation that members of the Committee would be active in building consensus for the uniform standard among their members and with the public. Discussion turned to whether the key stakeholders had all been identified. It was noted some effort had already been made to include governments, vehicle and trailer manufacturers, the trucking industry, shippers, public advocacy groups, and load securement component manufacturers. The participants were requested by the Co-Chairs to identify any other groups or individuals who should be invited to participate in the process. It was noted an effort would be made by the Drafting Group to seek out specific sectoral input for different portions (ie: metal coils) of the standard.

After further discussion the participants endorsed the two group structure and mandates proposed for the standards harmonization effort recognizing this was the best fit for ensuring consensus and rapid movement toward a uniform North American standard.

5. Approach for Standard Development

Mr. Billing tabled a paper describing the approach to be followed for the standards harmonization process. He indicated the objective was to develop a standard which every jurisdiction in North America could adopt. He indicated a commentary which explains and justifies every clause of the standard should be developed. He indicated at a later date the Committee would have to develop recommendations for implementation of the standard.

He proposed the format of the North American standard should be:

A general discussion on a performance based standard ensued. A number of participants indicated establishing the proper "G's" for vehicle characteristics would be critical to the development of the standard. Some discussion ensued on the "G's" associated with normal vehicle operation, emergency manoeuvres, and crash situations. Participants were requested to forward any literature or research which had been undertaken in this area to Mr. Covello the Chair of the Drafting Group.

The Co-Chairs sought additional input and comments on the approach which was being proposed for the standard development and harmonization process. All the participants indicated their support for the concept and the approach. A number of participants indicated they doubted all of the work necessary to deliver a standard in the form proposed could be achieved by February 1997. It was noted this was the deadline which had been set for completion of the development of the standard and every effort would be made to meet this deadline. It was noted as the standards development phase moved towards completion legal reviews on the standard would be sought in the respective countries. The importance of using new diagrams to illustrate requirements, and the use of both measurement scales (ie: metric/imperial) in the standard was emphasized. Mr. Covello and Pearson agreed to incorporate both measurement systems in the standard similar to the way they are reported in the CVSA OOS standard.

It was agreed the paper would serve as a good outline for standard development. The approach to a standard was endorsed by all the participants. It was acknowledged as more stakeholders became involved in the process they would also be called upon to endorse the approach. It was noted the priority would be on delivering a "good product" which could be adopted by each jurisdiction in North America. Committee members were invited to submit any additional comments on the paper to Mr. Covello.

6. Standards Harmonization Process - Report from Drafting Group

Mr. Covello provided a brief status report on the work of the Drafting Group noting two initial meetings (Québec City and Norfolk) had been held. He indicated the group had already initiated some work based on the format and approach which had been presented at this meeting. He indicated the Drafting Group was discussing issues relative to definitions, scope and application of the standard.

A general discussion on the applicability of a North American standard ensued. It was suggested during the course of the standard development process the roles and responsibilities of the driver, carrier and shipper would have to be carefully reviewed. It was noted in some jurisdictions shippers could not be held responsible for load securement requirements though they did play an important role in the problem and the process. A number of participants queried when the first draft of the standard would be available for review. Mr. Covello indicated his group would be working to issue the first draft within six to eight weeks. All participants indicated they would comment on the document when released.

a) Review of Existing North American Load Securement Requirements

Mr. Covello tabled a paper developed by Mr. Desrosiers of Québec which provided a side by side comparison of the existing load securement requirements in Canada and the United States. It was noted this document had been prepared with the view of identifying specific areas which should be targeted for the harmonization effort. The discrepancy of the requirements for metal coils and specific commodities were noted. It was further suggested the research results would hopefully serve to lead the Committee out of the varying requirements identified in the report.

Committee members were asked to review and identify any errors or omissions. It was suggested any of the government members whose legislation differed from that presented should identify and submit their particular requirements to the Drafting Group. It was further noted in discussion that an effort was going to be made to incorporate the California requirements into the document. The issue of whether all other U.S. state requirements should be included was briefly discussed and it was agreed given the international nature of the standard this would serve no useful purpose at this juncture. It was further noted the approach which had been recommended had suggested the Committee begin as if there were no existing requirements. It was agreed the report would be used as a reference document which would be reviewed again following development of the standard to ensure all areas of existing discrepancies were addressed. It was further agreed the document would be useful in development of the implementation strategy.

b) Transport Canada Part 1 Notice - Anchor Points

Mr. Neufeld provided an overview of the Canada Gazette Part 1 which had been issued by Transport Canada which would require new trailers to come equipped with anchor points. He complimented CCMTA staff on organizing and coordinating the research and standards harmonization process noting this would ensure the finished product to be developed by this group addressed the current load securement problems being encountered on North American highways. He outlined the scope and application of the proposed rule noting it had been written in clear language with the intent of reducing load loss accidents. He briefly outlined the commentary process used by Transport Canada indicating the effective date for the rule would be six months after it was published as a Canada Gazette Part II.

In discussion it was noted the Part II would incorporate where appropriate amendments suggested by various stakeholders. The formula for calculating the required number of anchor points was explained. It was noted under the current definition in the proposed regulation an anchor point could include a hard point, winch, tie down, and D-rings. Some of the field problems which were currently being encountered were discussed (ie: incorrect placement of hooks, use of rub rails) by the participants. The need to address the requirements for car carriers was identified as an issue which would have to reviewed in the months ahead. The issue of marking anchor points was briefly discussed and it was suggested the working load limit should be used to ensure it is consistent with the marking for tiedowns. The split jurisdiction in Canada for "manufacturing" standards (ie: new vehicle requirements) and "in use" standards (ie: prescribed number of tiedowns) was described. It was suggested to the extent possible an integrated package for load securement would be the objective of the initiative. To this end review and commentary on the Canada Gazette Part 1 was part of the mandate of the Committee.

c) Review of Accident Reports Submitted by CVSA Members

Mr. Fiste indicated in support of the standards harmonization process governments would have to conduct a review of load securement accidents to support making changes to their respective regulations. He indicated a request had been made to CVSA members (Canadian, U.S. and Mexico) to document load loss or load shift accidents. He indicated he would be following up with a number of jurisdictions as this work would be essential to secure an expedited implementation of the new standard. He indicated there was a role for stakeholders to play in this process by either identifying load securement studies which referenced accidents, or by supplying information from their own files or experiences.

Mr. Covello led the participants through a brief review of the accident reports submitted by CVSA members to date. In discussion the participants indicated the accident reports supported the major areas which were the subject of the research initiative. The similarities with respect to the accidents which were occurring throughout North America was noted. It was agreed all stakeholders would endeavour to provide accident summaries to Mr. Covello for review by the Drafting Group. It was noted most accident summaries did not provide a detailed or in depth review of the causative factors. Mr. Jones indicated the preliminary results from the Oregon study on the Out-of-service criteria would soon be available. It was suggested there was accident data from the states contained in this study which should be reviewed by the Drafting Group. It was agreed Mr. Covello would follow up on this work with Mr. Jones. Participants were encouraged to review their own files and provide any detailed analysis on their own incidents. It was agreed all participants would attempt to document future accidents and transmit any studies they come across to Mr. Covello.

7. North American Standard - Process for Consultation

The process for consultation over the next few months and through the balance of the standards harmonization process was outlined. It was noted the Drafting Group would be issuing drafts for review by any interested stakeholder. CCMTA and CVSA hoped to be in a position in the early summer to post on the INTERNET each draft of the North American standard for comment. This would save all participants some of the costs relative to attending meetings. Comments would be transmitted to the Drafting Group for review and incorporation as appropriate in the standard.

All participants confirmed their intention to participate and work together for a common North American standard. It was suggested and agreed the participants to this meeting would identify and advise the CCMTA Secretariat of other groups or individuals who they believed should be involved in the consultation process. Ms. Pelletier indicated the Secretariat would begin compiling a list which would grow as more stakeholders became involved in the process. It was noted CCMTA would assume responsibility for Canadian stakeholders while CVSA and FHWA would work to ensure U.S. stakeholders were involved in the process. Mr. Fiste indicated CVSA and FHWA would work out an arrangement to ensure this occurred.

A number of participants queried whether FHWA would undertake this method of consultation. Mr. Thomas indicated FHWA intended to publish a Notice of Intent in the near future to confirm the joint standards review process. It was suggested this document would indicate the FHWA's intent and commitment to work with Canada and Mexico towards the schedule which had been adopted for the standards review process. It was noted FHWA was also reviewing the different means available (including E-Mail) for involving other stakeholders in the process. Where E-Mail communication were not possible the traditional methods of communication would be used by the Standards Harmonization Committee. All participants were requested to provide their mailing and E-Mail addresses where appropriate to the CCMTA Secretariat. The consultation process outlined by the Co-Chairs was endorsed by the participants.

8. Post Standard Development Issues

a) Training

Mr. Fiste spoke to this issue indicating as the process unfolded there would be a requirement to develop training materials which could be used by carriers, shippers and enforcement personnel. The need to explain the elements of performance based North American standard was emphasized. He indicated as the Committee moved towards a North American standard there would be a requirement to provide information and to provide training materials on the new standard. He indicated this would be one portion of the Committee mandate as we moved to a North American standard.

In discussion the participants endorsed the development of uniform training material. It was agreed a standardized training program would be required to ensure all stakeholders subject to the standard would be in a position to comply with the requirements. It was further noted common training material would ensure consistent enforcement from one jurisdiction to another in the three countries. A single North American standard would facilitate development of uniform training materials. It was agreed there would be a requirement to make the material available in english, french and spanish. The participants indicated they would be prepared later in the mandate of the Committee to consider partnerships in the development of the material. It was acknowledged the material could be in print and video format.

Mr. Johnson indicated some training materials had already been assembled by the American Association of Rail Roads (AAR). This material was addressed at providing guidelines for intermodal loading of commodities in closed trailers and containers. He agreed to forward a copy to CCMTA for review by the Committee at a later date. It was agreed any of the participants interested in receiving a copy of this material would contact the CCMTA Secretariat.

b) Communication Plan

The Co-chairs spoke briefly to the idea that as the standards harmonization process unfolded there would be a need to develop a public outreach or communication strategy. It was suggested there would be times when different materials would have to be prepared for all stakeholders to outline the objectives of the project. In addition the Committee would be responsible for preparing briefing materials for higher level decision makers. Participants were asked to provide their thoughts on this issue.

A brief discussion ensued on the stumbling blocks which would confront the Committee over the course of the next year. It was noted one problem which would have to be addressed was that by the Fall there would be a lot more people and organizations involved in the process. It was suggested it would become increasingly difficult to maintain a consensus on the issues when some organizations become involved in the process. It was suggested the active solicitation of comments from these types of groups should await the development of a core consensus from the primary stakeholders who would be affected by the standard. It was suggested as the project unfolded it would be difficult to maintain consensus particularly if the standard imposed different requirements on various sectors in the transportation industry. It was acknowledged the Committee would have to work through these problems as they emerged.

A number of the participants suggested the media would "love" the fact that all three countries and industry were working together to resolve load securement issues. It was suggested they would be interested in the process and partnership aspect of the project. It was further suggested by a number of participants the media would ensure the "message" reached decision makers, stakeholders, and citizens in the respective countries.

The participants endorsed the notion that a more elaborate communication plan would have to be developed during the standard development and harmonization project. It was noted a number of groups which would eventually become involved in the process would not share the view of working together to develop consensus on this public policy initiative. It was suggested and agreed as a beginning that Mr. Fiste and Ms. Pelletier would serve as the contact point for those interested in receiving further information on the standards harmonization initiative and for press inquiries. It was confirmed participants could refer inquiries to the Co-Chairs. It was suggested Committee members would have a role to play in advising their colleagues of the project and the means by which to participate in the standards harmonization process. It was clarified prior to the release of the first draft inquiries should be directed to the Chairs. Subsequent to the release of the first draft of the standard interested parties seeking to comment on the standard should be directed to the Drafting Group. It was agreed questions on process and objectives would be forwarded to the Co-Chairs.

9. Other Business

No other business items were identified by the participants.

10. Next Meeting/Adjournment

It was suggested and agreed the next meeting should be held during the CVSA Annual Conference. It was noted the conference would be held September 15-18, 1996 in Charleston, West Virginia.

CVSA President Brooks took the opportunity to congratulate the participants for a successful meeting indicating he viewed this as an important initiative which would further motor carrier safety in North America. Ms. Pelletier took the opportunity on behalf of all the participants to thank Mr. Fiste and CVSA for hosting the first meeting of the Committee. She indicated every effort would be made to reciprocate the hospitality which had been extended by CVSA when the Committee visited Canada.

The participants thanked the Co-Chairs for a productive meeting. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.