In Attendance:

CVSA - R. Fiste - Co-Chair, CCMTA - L. Pelletier - Co-Chair, CCMTA (Harmonization-Committee) - S. McAlister - Secretary, Union Camp Corp. - J. Avilés, Oregon DOT/MCTB - R. Jones, CCMTA - J. Billing, SNF Inc. - V. Kasapoglu, California Trucking Assoc. - L. Blood, WASTEC - J. Legler, Railinc - AAR - R. Burkhart, New York State (DOT) - B. Leonard, Abitibi Consolidated Canada - B. Carlson, Crosby Group Inc. - C. Lucas, Wabash National /TTMA - K. Carr, MacKinnon Transport /CTA - E. MacKinnon, FHWA - OMC - A. Choquette, Abitibi Consolidated - R. Mailas, Canadian Pulp and Paper Assoc. - D. Church, American Concrete Pipe Assoc. - S. McCloskey, Austin Powder Company - B. Coleman, ABF Freight Systems - R. McPhail, New York State (DOT) - J. Connolly, Ohio State Highway Patrol - R. Meek, Canadian Trucking Alliance - G. Cooper, FHWA (OMC) - Standards - L. Minor, US DOT /FHWA - T. Cotter, Securfit Inc. - B. Montgomery, New York State (DOT) - D. Cottrell, Alcan / Aluminum Assoc. - B. Moore, Ministère des Transports du Quebec - J. Couture, Securfit Inc. - J. Morrison, New York State (DOT) - B. Davidzik, Transport Canada - J. Neufeld, Ministère des Transports du Quebec - G. Desrosiers, BESL Transfer Co. - R. Noel, Dodge-Regupol Inc. - A. Dodge, British Columbia - R. Oldridge, New Brunswick (Solicitor General) - B. Doyle, California Highway Patrol - M. Padilla, Domtar Paper - A. Durocher, Alberta Transportation & Utilities - H. Parenteau, Prince Edward Island - C. Easter, CCMTA - J. Pearson, Georgia-Pacific - S. Edge, Georgia-Pacific Corp. - R. Pugh, New York State (DOT) - D. Eighmey, Norampac Inc. - J. Quart, Wabash National /TTMA - R. Ehrlich, Columbus McKinnon Corp. - R. Reynolds, Alcan Oswego - S. Falise, FHWA - Albany - M. Schmidt, Ohio State Highway Patrol - J. Feddern, New York State (DOT) - N. Schneider, Allegheny Industrial Associates - T. Feltault, Cargo Cross Universal Securement Systems - D. Schrader, Compass Transportation - D. Fire, FHWA / OMC - E. Scrivner, Peerless Chain Co./NACM - R. George, Riverside Service - K. Staub, California Highway Patrol - J. Gosselin, Minnesota State Patrol - H. Steele, Caristrap International - J. Hayes, American Trucking Association - L. Strawhorn, American Forest & Paper Assoc. - D. Hershey, Kinedyne Corporation - J. Takacs, Shippers Paper Products - J. Howlett, US DOT - FHWA - New York - B. Temperine, Jackson Welding Supply - B. Jackson, FHWA (OMC) - N. Thomas, Eastman Kodak Co. - J. Jackura, National Transportation Safety Board - G. Van Etten, Alcan Aluminum - Oswego - J. Jadus, Pennsylvania PUC Motor Carrier Enforcement - D. Wilson, FHWA - OMC - A. Johnsen, Yellow Freight Systems - M. Windsor, Allegheny Industrial Associates - M. Johnson, Allegheny Industrial Associates - S. Johnson, Columbus McKinnon - D. Johnston.

1. Introduction

Ms. Pelletier the Co-Chair of the North American Cargo Securement Standards Harmonization Committee welcomed participants to Rochester for the eighth meeting. She noted this was the first time government and industry had jointly reviewed research results to work towards developing a standard which could be implemented uniformly in Canada, the United States and hopefully Mexico. It was suggested the initiative would set a precedent for future activity between the countries to work together to develop common solutions to road safety problems.

The Committee would be asked to provide final comments on the standard prepared as a draft regulation. It was hoped closure could be brought to the majority of items under discussion. It was 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 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 the correspondence from the American Forest & Paper Association (AF & PA) under item 5.e), 1. It was also agreed ‘Crushed Vehicles" would be considered on the first day.

3. Adoption of Record of Decisions - May 1-2, 1998

The Record of Decisions from the May 1-2, 1998 meeting were reviewed. Mr. Kasopoglu suggested on page 14, third paragraph, after the third sentence that a further sentence be added to the Record of Decisions: "However, he indicated that if the Committee were to put their proposal in writing regarding SNF’s trailer as a means of transport he would provide an official response". It was agreed any further action on the request would be deferred until consideration of the crushed vehicles section of the rule. The Record of Decisions for May 1-2, 1998 meeting were approved.

4. Overview of Research and Standards Harmonization Process

Mr. Pearson provided a general overview of the research and cargo securement standard harmonization initiative. The purpose of the load securement research project had been to gather comprehensive data on cargo securement systems. The purpose of the Standards Harmonization Committee was to review the results, and develop a new performance based standard which could be uniformly implemented throughout North America. The revised schedule for completion of the Project was also reviewed. It was noted for this meeting the focus would be on the draft model regulation. Following completion of the regulation the Drafting Group would complete the interpretive guide.

In discussion, it was noted as the standard development process drew to a close the issues of maintenance and implementation of the rule became more critical. It was agreed further discussion on implementation issues would be deferred until later in the meeting (See item 7 of this Record of Decisions). It was noted the complete set of reports from the project and the two videos were available from the CCMTA Secretariat. Order forms for the report and videos were distributed to interested participants. Moreover, the order forms were also on the Project web site located at www.ab.org\ccmta\ccmta.html.

5. North American Cargo Securement Standard-Review of Proposed Model Regulation Draft 2

a) Summary of Comments Received

Mr. Pearson provided an overview of the evolution of the standard. He noted there was increased pressure for the Committee to complete development of the rule and to begin work on the steps which would be required for uniform implementation. He noted comments had been received from the American Forest & Paper Association, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, American Trucking Association, California Trucking Association, California Highway Patrol, Canadian Trucking Association, SNF and a host of other shipper and government agencies. In brief, some of the comments were directed towards the performance requirements, some to specific commodities, with the bulk directed at material contained in the guide. These comments had been reviewed and where possible Drafting Group members had incorporated the suggestions in Draft 2 of the rule which would be reviewed by the Committee at this session.

It was agreed further discussion on the comments would be deferred until consideration of Draft 2.

b) Review of Proposed Process for Completing Documentation

Mr. Pearson indicated the objective of this meeting would be to come to consensus on the proposed rule. He noted the Drafting Group had made a decision through the summer to develop the regulatory text which would be submitted to governments for consideration in place of their existing cargo securement rules. He noted it was the regulatory text which was critical for the evolution of the Standard as a rule. The guide would be an additional benefit only in so far as it explained the requirements of the rule. Once the Harmonization Committee had agreed on the rule, the Drafting Group would complete the guide which would include best and recommended practices for cargo securement. To this end further development of the guide had been deferred until consensus was reached on the model regulation. He completed this portion of his presentation by indicating the completed guide would be turned over to the Training Committee for further development.

Following a brief discussion the Harmonization Committee agreed to adopt this process for completion of the developmental stage of the rule, and endorsed the guide would be completed by the Drafting Group following agreement on the contents of the rule.

c) Overview of Revisions to Model Regulation - Draft 2

Mr. Pearson briefly provided an overview of the revisions which had been made since the May meeting. He noted the Drafting Group had met or corresponded with various industry sectors to address the concerns which had been raised on specific sections. Draft 2 attempts to address the comments provided, implementation concerns, the need for practical regulatory requirements and the key findings from the research and testing. He noted all of the advisory language which had been in Draft 1 had been removed and would be placed in the guide. He noted on the basis of comments received the proposed rule had been restructured with the addition of a definitions section (Part 4), referenced standards (Part 5), and default working load limits (Part 6). In addition, it was noted the Drafting Group had reworked the sections pertaining to direct and indirect tiedowns, the method for counting tiedowns, and developed minimum requirements for tiedowns based on the size and weight of the cargo. It was noted the intent had been for the specific requirements to supersede the general requirements for specific commodities.

From the discussion it was noted many of the implementation issues (i.e.: trailers, stock of unmarked components) had been deferred, and would be taken up by the Cargo Securement Implementation Committee. In this regard the existing working load limit tables in use in the US had been added to the rule to facilitate implementation. It was noted additional work would have to be undertaken between the two countries, manufacturers and carriers to develop implementation plans to meet the agreed upon principle that at some future date the load carrying capacity of all components in the cargo securement system must be known. This in turn would mean at some future date there would be no default ratings for either vehicles or components and as such Part 6 would be deleted. The Harmonization Committee endorsed the approach taken by the Drafting Group and reaffirmed the principle that all components in a cargo securement system must be rated and marked.

The summary of changes incorporated into Draft 2 were endorsed by the Harmonization Committee. It was agreed specific comments on draft 2 would be deferred until after consideration of the next item.

d) Comparison of Model Regulation Proposal with Current Requirements

Mr. Pearson distributed a comparison document noting the Drafting Group had been requested to assemble material providing a side by side comparison of existing US and Canadian requirements in relation to the new cargo securement standard. He noted many of the comments being received on the standard and guide were seeking clarification on what requirements were changing as a result of the new standard. He briefly highlighted those areas where the standard was becoming more prescriptive (specific commodities) and those sections where the requirements would become less prescriptive in recognition of the positive role friction played in the retention of cargo. He concluded his presentation by indicating the document was a "work in progress" which would be further updated and amended as a result of the work completed at this meeting and during the implementation phase of the standard.

In discussion, the stakeholders indicated this was a very useful document which could be used to brief individuals on the requirements of the new standard. It was noted both existing Canadian and US requirements contained provisions relating to metal coils, intermodal containers and miscellaneous metal articles. It was noted the proposed standard extended and clarified provisions for metal coils and intermodal containers and if adopted would harmonize Canadian and US requirements. It was further noted the key feature of the new standard was that it took and defined specifically what was required for other commodities. These commodities are currently covered under the generic provisions of existing legislation in Canada and the United States. A number of stakeholders indicated that as a result the new standard was not proposing radically new requirements for these commodities but rather attempting to define specifically what was required from the existing legislation in each country. It was agreed this would be a point that needed to be emphasized in briefings to government and industry stakeholders.

The issue of whether "miscellaneous metal articles" which appears in both existing US and Canadian regulations, but does not appear in the proposed North American standard was discussed. Many stakeholders argued for retention and inclusion of these requirements in the North American standard, while others indicated no one had identified problems in this area and as such they should be dropped given the general provisions of the standard would apply. Following further discussion it was agreed discretion would be provided to the Drafting Group to include provisions for miscellaneous metal articles in the standard, if in the view of the Drafting Group it was felt the general provisions of the standard did not adequately cover other metal products. It was agreed it should be fairly easy to harmonize these requirements as they are similar in both Canada and the United States. The direction to the Drafting Group was the section should "harmonize" existing Canadian and US requirements and add no new requirements.

A number of stakeholders indicated the document did not include specific requirements for individual states and provinces which deviated from both "national" standards in Canada and the United States. It was noted some states (California) and provinces (BC) included additional requirements not referenced in the document. These local variations were acknowledged by members of the Drafting Group and it was noted the treatment of the variations was something which would have to be dealt with by the Implementation Committee after each government agency had been requested to indicate whether they were prepared to give up their local rules in favour of the North American standard. To this end it was suggested and agreed the document be reviewed and treated as a work in progress to be expanded and updated. It was agreed the document would be critical to securing support for the new North American standard as the process moved to the rulemaking phase. It was agreed the Drafting Group would be tasked with further developing the document and posting it on the web site to assist stakeholders in explaining the new standard and requirements to their members.

e) Open Discussion

The Co-Chairs sought direction from the Committee on how the review of the proposed rule should proceed. It was agreed the Committee would proceed with a section by section review of the proposed rule in order to complete the standard development process.

The Committee endorsed and approved Sections 1.1. pertaining to Application. A number of stakeholders suggested Section 1.2 be renamed from "Objectives" to "General Principle" so that it is clear that the general requirement is that cargo must be "contained or secured so that it will not leak, spill, blow, fall from, become dislodged or shift....." was regulatory language which would be used in all legislation. Section 1.2 was approved with this understanding.

Performance Criteria

An overview of Section 1.3 relating to the performance criteria was provided. It was noted the Drafting Committee had not received any suggestions for alternate criteria which had been supported by studies or other technical literature. Mr. Strawhorn indicated the performance criteria had been circulated by ATA to tire and vehicle manufacturers. He noted the ATA had been advised the .5g lateral was excellent, the .8g forward was acceptable, and that no information could be provided on the .5g rearward because no manufacturers are currently conducting compliance testing in this direction. It was suggested and agreed in order to be consistent with section 2.11 that the words "or decelerations" be added to section 1.3. Mr. Edge indicated members of the paper roll industry were still experiencing difficulty with the rationale for requirements in the rearward direction in that they doubted a vehicle could ever reach this threshold without being involved in a crash. Mr. Billing indicated this figure could be generated in shifting gears up a steep incline, inclement weather (ice to hard surface), or when the vehicle backs into a loading dock. It was suggested this number might be more appropriate for flat bed trailers but not van trailers. A number of stakeholders indicated the real difficulty in selecting the numbers to be used stemmed from the variety of criteria which were currently being used and the multiplicity of applications between vehicles and cargo. It was noted options for the performance criteria which had been reviewed included at one end of the spectrum the AAR specification for intermodal trailers set at 3.5g or no requirements. It was noted the Drafting Group was still committed to the inclusion of the existing performance criteria in the rule.

In further discussion it was noted the AAR were reviewing their trailer standards and might be moving closer to the performance criteria proposed by the Harmonization Committee. It was agreed the real issue was determining what movement would be allowed. It was acknowledged movement of a couple of inches in the rearward direction was probably acceptable, where movement in the order of 1-2 feet was probably unacceptable. Mr. Ehrlich from the TTMA indicated members of his association believed the current numbers were appropriate but the concern was how they would be applied. If taken literally as a no damage criteria without qualification the TTMA would have to start building much more robust trailers. It was noted this had been a concern of the TTMA members when revising recommended practice RP 47. Drafting Group members clarified the performance numbers had not been intended as "no damage" criteria. Some deflection and distortion would be permitted in trailer walls provided the load remained contained and secured. Some stakeholders did express reservations about continuing to operate a damaged vehicle. It was noted the OOS criteria would address this situation (i.e.: bulging walls).

In discussion of the performance criteria the following options were considered: deletion of the performance requirements entirely, or placing the performance criteria in the interpretive guide. It was noted it had never been intended that the performance criteria would be enforced at road side. Rather, the performance criteria had been developed as objective criteria for those individuals who wished to demonstrate and certify new cargo securement systems outside of those which are covered by the general and specific commodity sections. In essence, the criteria became the test for new cargo securement devices or procedures. It was noted the process for administering acceptance of these systems was included as part of the mandate of the Implementation Committee. It was suggested deletion of the criteria would reduce the work of the Committee to a straight harmonization initiative rather than an attempt to develop a performance based rule. The majority of participants indicated these options were not acceptable. It was agreed the Drafting Group would be requested to conduct one final review of the rearward direction for the performance criteria. It was acknowledged the Harmonization Committee would defer to the judgement of the Drafting Group on the final number to be selected. With this caveat it was agreed the performance criteria would be considered final and endorsed by the Harmonization Committee. It was agreed the performance criteria should be retained in the standard.

Part 2 - General Provisions and Requirements

Drafting Group members indicated the changes which had been made in this section to clarify the requirements for direct and indirect tiedowns, the method for counting tiedowns, and the minimum requirements for tiedowns based on the size and weight of the cargo.

Sections 2.1 through 2.1.2 was approved by the Committee. Section 2.3 was approved with the addition of the words "becoming loose" in the first paragraph. It was agreed the Drafting Group would rework or remove the phrase "or if the cargo would be subject to crushing" to better indicate when edge protectors are required. Section 2.1.4 relating to dunnage and blocking/bracing was approved.

Mr. Takacs suggested revisions to Section 2.1.5 relating to securement system strength rating to make the language more consistent with the WSTDA standards. It was suggested the total assembly system must be reviewed, and not just the individual components when establishing the strength requirements. It was further suggested that it would be appropriate to make a distinction in this section between chain and web straps. In addition, it was suggested an additional statement should be added for cordage and wire rope. It was also suggested there was a need to add "load stabilizer bars" to 2.1.6. This prompted a general discussion on whether shoring bars, tracks and netting would also have to be marked and rated given that in some current applications they are not. It was suggested and agreed the Drafting Group would consider adding definitions for beams, load stabilizer bars, nets, tracks and track fittings to the definition section of the final draft of the standard. It was agreed proper references to WSTDA standards would be included in the appropriate sections of the standard. It was suggested the word "gap" in Section 2.2.2 needed to be defined in the definition section of the standard and the guide for enforcement purposes. Alternatively, the words "braced against movement" could be added to this section.

Some discussion ensued on section 2.2.4 and the 30 degree requirement for indirect tiedowns. It was noted this requirement was supported directly by the research. It was suggested that in the guide careful direction should be provided so that enforcement officers employ common sense in enforcing this provision. The revised language submitted by the Drafting Group relative to direct and indirect tiedowns 2.2.4 was approved by the Harmonization Committee. It was agreed under Section 2.2.4.1. the Drafting Group would review this section with a view to making editorial changes which clearly specified when tiedowns are required. In addition, wording would be added to clarify and indicate what must be done for multi-tiered loads similar to that which is found in section 3.2 for Dressed Lumber.

Committee discussion focused on Section 2.3 relating to the requirement to periodically inspect cargo securement systems during the trip. It was suggested the distance and time requirements be removed. It was noted existing rules contained this provision and it had been requested at the last Harmonization Committee meeting. It was suggested the 25 mile requirement be changed to 50 miles in large urban areas as it is often difficult for a driver to find a place for this inspection to be undertaken. It was agreed discretion would be left to the Drafting Group to include two mileage requirements (25 rural and 50 city) or just one mileage requirement (50) for this provision. Some stakeholders indicated they were uncomfortable with the provision which exempted drivers from inspection in the case of sealed vans noting enforcement officers were now opening sealed vehicles. It was however agreed the provisions would remain and section 2.3 was approved by the Harmonization Committee.

Logs 3.1

Mr. Billing provided an overview of Draft 2 noting the changes from the previous draft. Draft 1 had generated significant commentary from stakeholders in Canada and the United States. He had worked with the forestry associations during the summer and Mr. Duncan and the associations he represented (NC, SC, MN, WA, GA, WI) were now prepared to endorse the rule. He noted he had also incorporated comments from Michigan, Oregon, Canadian provinces and enforcement personnel in revising this section.

In discussion, it was noted the section requiring auto tensioning devices had been revised to allow for manual tensioning of the load. Mr. Blood indicated the draft did not cover some of the typical vehicle configurations found in the Western states. It was suggested the number one cargo securement problem with logs was that they could work there way out of the bundle or lose contact with restraining stakes. Mr. Oldridge identified specific BC requirements relative to the positioning of stacks on vehicles. It was agreed Messrs. Billing and Blood would meet to resolve issues relative to terminology and to clarify the application of the rule. It was agreed the Harmonization Committee would approve this section pending any minor revisions made as a result of discussions between Messrs. Blood and Billing.

Dressed Lumber 3.2

Messrs. Desrosiers provided an overview of the revisions which had been made in this section as a result of consultations with industry representatives. He noted the key principle was that bundles should be placed side by side in direct contact with each other and the number of tiedowns required for multiple tiers had been derived from the General Freight section.

In discussion, a number of stakeholders indicated it was not possible in some instances to ensure contact between bundles and suggested the language be revised to include "should" or "as practicable as possible". In addition, it was suggested the word "skid" be replaced with "spacer". It was noted if appropriate high friction dunnage or spacers are used, restraint of each tier would not be required. It was suggested and agreed further work would be required for covered bundles to identify the requirements for enforcement purposes. It was suggested and agreed the 3.2.3 would be renumbered as part of 3.2.2.c). It was suggested and agreed the first paragraph and the section would be reworked by the Drafting Group to clearly indicate and relate the requirements to section 2.2.4.1 on General Freight. It was suggested this was necessary in order to permit carriers to conduct the calculations relative to the number of tiedowns required. Mr. Pugh indicated with the exception of a few wording changes which would be provided to Mr. Desrosiers, members of his association and the Project Group were comfortable with the provisions contained in the Section. It was suggested and agreed further work needed to be undertaken with this section before it can be considered final.

Metal Coils 3.3

Mr. Minor outlined the changes which had been made in Draft 2 since the last meeting. Provisions relating to no movement of chocks had been added to this section and an effort had been made to streamline the requirements by removing redundant language. He noted this section had been developed on the basis of the CCMTA research and the study conducted by the University of Southern Illinois. He noted the corrections sought by the Harmonization Committee at the last meeting had been incorporated into the draft regulation.

In discussion, Mr. Billing provided the rationale from the research for the prohibition against use of chain in an x pattern. Some concern was expressed with the 60 degree angle requirement where it was noted this would need to be explained with proper caveats in the enforcement guide to ensure consistent and reasonable enforcement of the provision. Mr. Minor indicated he would conduct a final review of the provisions (use of wood blocking) with members of the steel industry. Members of the aluminum industry present indicated they were satisfied with the current wording in the proposed rule. It was further noted the issue of the proximity of the coils to the trailer walls had been resolved. The Committee approved the metal coils section as complete.

Paper Rolls 3.4

(Secretariat Note: Consideration of the principles contained in this section were not discussed pending a meeting (that evening) between members of the Drafting Group and Industry representatives. What follows is the outcome of the meeting and the decisions reported to the Harmonization Committee.)

Messrs. McAlister and Edge updated participants on the meeting which had been held the previous night between members of the Drafting Group and industry. It was noted this section would not be reviewed pending a further joint rewrite of the rules and testing to be undertaken by the paper roll industry with assistance from the Drafting Group. It was noted consensus had been reached on the regulatory language for some of the major issues related to full loads, and additional drafting work would be undertaken on split/bilge loading and unitization of paper rolls.

It was noted the Drafting Group would work with industry representatives on an expedited basis to develop the final language for this section. It was noted Messrs. Minor and Billing would work with Mr. Edge to develop draft language for the rule which could be subjected to testing later in the fall. It was noted one of the major points to be reviewed would be the issue of whether paper rolls could be safely secured without blocking and bracing (required under current rules in Canada and the United States), and whether the performance requirements could be met by use of rubber mats. Drafting Group and industry representatives indicated it was their hope the redrafting and testing could be completed by the end of December 1998. A number of stakeholders queried how they could provide comments on the revised paper rolls section. It was suggested and agreed the section would be posted on the project web site in December. Stakeholders would check the web site and provide any supplementary comments by December 31, 1998 in order for the rule to be completed early in the New Year. These actions were approved by the Harmonization Committee.

Concrete Pipes 3.5

Mr. Billing provided an overview of the requirements in the concrete pipe section noting industry in Canada and the United States supported and endorsed the requirements in this section.

It was suggested the standard should specify that only chain or cable is permitted. It was suggested the term "wire-core aircraft-grade cable" be replaced with IW4R cable. It was agreed this section would be considered complete and approved by the Committee. Mr. McCloskey on behalf of the Concrete Pipe Associations in Canada and the United States thanked the Harmonization Committee for consideration and incorporation of their changes in the rule. The Co-Chairs thanked the Concrete Pipe Associations for their dedicated work in completing the standard.

Intermodal Containers 3.6

Mr. Minor provided an overview of the intermodal container sections noting only minor editing changes had been made since the last meeting.

It was suggested webbing be permitted for unladen containers. Mr. Billing indicated the research had clearly indicated this was not an appropriate or safe practice. A number of enforcement officers indicated without weighing the vehicle it would be difficult to determine whether the vehicle was laden or unladen. It was agreed the use of webbing would remain prohibited. It was agreed the Drafting Group would review and where appropriate provide direction on the treatment of overhanging containers. It was agreed this section would be considered complete and approved by the Committee.

Automobiles, Light Trucks and Vans 3.7

Mr. Neufeld provided an overview of this section noting the section had been endorsed by industry and approved at the last meeting.

No new issues were raised by participants. It was noted additional information on compliance would be contained in the guide derived from industry loading patterns. It was agreed the Committee would consider this section complete and approved.

Heavy Construction Equipment 3.8

Mr. Neufeld provided an overview of the heavy construction equipment section noting sign off had been received from industry and that additional loading patterns from the Special Carrier and Rigging Association (SCRA) and US military would be included in the guide.

Mr. Blood and others raised the issue of placing chain on grousers and tracks suggesting the rule should advise against this location. Tiedowns on rubber tracks was also raised as an issue. Concern was expressed it would be difficult to get the wheels or tracks up against the gooseneck of the trailer. It was suggested the language be massaged to recommend placement as near as practical to prevent forward movement. It was suggested additional definitions be added. With these changes this section was approved by the Harmonization Committee.

Crushed Vehicles 3.9

Mr. Neufeld provided an overview of the crushed vehicles section noting two principles were being put forward. Crushed vehicles in stacks must remain on the trailer and small parts must not become dislodged and fall on the road during transport. The Drafting Group was proposing a four sided vehicle for the transport of crushed vehicles.

Mr. Kasapoglu made a presentation in which he sought the withdrawal of all three scenarios appearing in this section arguing on the basis of existing commercial operations none of the scenarios are realistic and make only a minor contribution to highway safety. He sought information on the other organizations which had been contacted by the Drafting Group in preparing this section. He concluded his presentation by requesting inclusion of a three sided trailer in section 3.9.

A general discussion ensued among the participants relative to the proposal being advanced. Mr. Blood indicated for the transport of crushed and baled vehicles it was critical the stacks be made as flat as possible. He further noted from the California experience there was no other way to contain debris without having four sides on a vehicle. Committee members were asked to indicate whether they supported the proposal from Mr. Kasopoglu to withdraw all three scenarios. The participants did not indicate support for the proposal. The Committee debated whether this section should be dropped from the standard and covered under the general provisions. It was agreed crushed vehicles would remain in the standard. It was noted a number of other recycling organizations had only recently become aware of the standards harmonization initiative. Mr. Fiste indicated he had received a request from an association in the southern US and from a national association in Washington to defer approval of this section pending review by these organizations. It was agreed Mr. Neufeld and the Drafting Group would be directed to meet with various industry stakeholders in an effort to reach an acceptable solution for this section. The Co-Chairs requested that the Drafting Group endeavour to resolve this issue with various industry stakeholders by December.

Roll-on/Roll-off Containers 3.10

Mr. Desrosiers provided an overview of the roll-on/roll-off container section noting the majority of issues had been addressed at previous meetings. Mr. Legler confirmed that apart from some minor editing changes to be provided to Mr. Desrosiers this section could be considered complete and endorsed by his industry.

Mr. Legler took the opportunity to update participants on the Z245 standards indicating it was hoped both would be ratified by Mid-1999. He indicated by the time the rule and guide are completed the new ANSI standards will be implemented. He suggested some minor editing changes relative to the application and requirements section. It was agreed these would be reviewed by the Drafting Group for incorporation into the rule. In addition a request was made to add a series of definitions to the definition section, and reference to the ANSI standards in Part 5 of the rule. These requests were endorsed by the Harmonization Committee and this section was approved.

Boulders 3.11

Mr. Pearson provided an overview of the Boulder section. Following a brief discussion it was agreed a definition for boulders needed to be added to the definition section. It was agreed this section would be considered complete and approved by the Committee.

Part 4 - Definitions

Mr. Pearson provided an overview of the definitions section of the standard noting for uniform implementation of the requirements across North America it was critical that common definitions be used.

It was noted the Harmonization Committee had already provided direction on the inclusion of additional definitions in the review of the previous sections of the standard. It was agreed stakeholders would provide any further suggestions for inclusion or amendment in the coming weeks. It agreed this section was complete except for minor additions and revisions.

Part 5 - Cargo Securement Components: Referenced Standards

The Committee undertook a review of the standards which would be referenced in the North American rule. Direction was sought on whether any other standards should be referenced.

It was noted the TTMA would not be addressing "dump bodies" as part of the RP47 therefore it was agreed the reference would be deleted from the title. Committee discussion turned on whether for purposes of adoption by jurisdictions whether dates were required for the referenced standards. It was suggested the "latest edition" be added to the standard. It was noted this would not be sufficient for jurisdictional implementation purposes. It was agreed for uniformity in provisions the most up to date version of the referenced standards along with adoption dates be added to the North American cargo securement rule. It was agreed given the standards are periodically updated by the sponsoring organizations an additional task for the Implementation Committee would be to consider the mechanism to ensure all jurisdictions referenced the latest version of these standards. It was agreed a further explanation and elaboration on these standards and their importance for correctly securing cargo would be contained in the guide.

Part 6 - Default Working Load Limits for Unmarked Tiedowns

A review of the working load limits for unmarked tiedowns was undertaken by the Committee. Mr. George reiterated the view of the NACM the default value for unmarked chain should be zero. Committee members however suggested the column for Grade 3 chain should be labelled as "unmarked". Discussion turned on whether the other three columns for chain needed to be retained given the title is for unmarked tiedowns and all other chain is marked and graded. Some members pointed out the other columns provided the working load limits for various grades of chain and suggested they be dropped from the standard but included in the guide. Other members suggested the inclusion of working load limits for tiedowns in the standard would be beneficial particularly for those jurisdictions which currently do not have provisions pertaining to working load limits in their legislation. Discussion turned to the inclusion requested by the Harmonization Committee of a table providing figures for nailed wood blocking. It was suggested the real issue with this table was not whether these were working load limits but rather what should the safety factor be for blocked and nailed wood. It was noted the variety of wood made specifying a number very difficult.

It was agreed further work would be undertaken by the Drafting Group to develop two tables for the standard. The first table would assign the values for unmarked tiedowns. The second table to be added would provide the working load limits of various tiedowns. It was agreed Mr. Lucas would provide to Mr. Pearson the specifications for unmarked and working load limits for synthetic webbing and wire rope. It was agreed the working load limit for grade 10 chain would be added. The Drafting Group was directed to determine whether the table for nailed wood blocking would be placed in a table for unmarked cargo securement components. It was agreed in the event the Drafting Group did not want to include the table it would be included in the guide. It was agreed with these changes this section would be considered complete and approved by the Committee.

i) American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) Correspondence

Mr. Edge spoke to the correspondence which had been circulated to the Committee relative to AF&PA and CCPA concerns relative to the latest draft of the North American Cargo Securement rule. The AF&PA requested that the Committee confirm the proposed regulations for intermodal freight containers apply solely to the containers, and that no securement rules apply to the cargo contained in the containers. In addition, the AF&PA requested written comments from the Committee on the industry submission on paper rolls, or the comments provided on the CCMTA paper rolls standard. Finally, the AF&PA sought evidence of US accidents that establish the need for commodity specific regulations for both dressed lumber and paper rolls.

Following discussion it was agreed the contents of the container would be covered by the general provisions and that revised language would be added to the standard to make this clear. It was suggested and agreed the second request by the AF&PA had been superseded by the discussion and progress which had been achieved the previous night by members of the industry and the Drafting Group and as a result no formal response would be provided. Paper roll representatives concurred with this decision.

Discussion turned to the request for US accident statistics. Paper roll representatives indicated they were not aware of accidents which were occurring from their claims experience which would warrant separate sections being created in the standard to address these commodities. Members of the Committee from the enforcement, carrier, and regulatory agencies indicated there were accidents related to these commodities which warranted inclusion in the specific commodities section. The Co-Chairs indicated they were not prepared to impede completion of the standard while awaiting accident statistics. The Co-Chairs reminded the participants the selection of commodities for special treatment had been vetted at three previous meetings and all participants had concurred on the need to provide specific requirements for these commodities. It was suggested concentration on accidents was a "false flag" as the second equally important objective of the Harmonization Committee was to harmonize the requirements between Canada and the United States. It was agreed Mr. Fiste would undertake to survey CVSA member jurisdictions to obtain more information on accidents relating to dressed lumber and paper rolls. It was agreed this initiative would be separate and would not effect the schedule which had been established to complete the dressed lumber and paper roll sections of the standard by December.

f) Outstanding Issues

i) Completion of Proposed Model Regulation

The Co-Chairs summarized the work completed by the Standards Harmonization Committee noting that with the exception of paper rolls, crushed vehicles, dressed lumber (minor revisions), and heavy construction equipment (minor revisions), the Committee had approved the North American Cargo Securement standard. Committee members endorsed and agreed with this assessment.

It was noted the schedule for completion of the remaining sections had been determined during consideration of item 5 e). of this Record of Decisions. It was agreed revised sections pertaining to paper rolls and crushed vehicles would be published on the Internet site for final comments by the end of December 1998. It was agreed participants would be provided two weeks to provide any additional comments on this section to the Drafting Group. Harmonization Committee members undertook to verify the web site for the posting of these sections and provide their comments as soon as possible. It was agreed the final version of the standard would be published early in the New Year. It was acknowledged further opportunity to comment on the standard would be provided during the implementation stages of the standard.

ii) Guide to Cargo Securement - Sample Concrete Pipe

Mr. Pearson provided a brief presentation on the guide reminding participants of the format which had previously been approved by the Committee (i.e.: The guide would provide a further elaboration of the requirements, contain information on "good" and "bad" practice, and would use illustrations to demonstrate acceptable cargo securement practices). The draft Concrete Pipe section was offered as an example of the material which would be contained in the guide.

It was agreed the guide would accompany the rule and provide additional clarification and practical advice on best cargo securement practices including the performance criteria and specific commodities sections. It was agreed much of the interpretation and guidance which had appeared in earlier drafts of the standard would be included in the revised guide. It was agreed the Drafting Group would be charged with completing the guide by the end of December given the standard was now complete in most respects. It was agreed two weeks would be provided for final comments to be provided on the guide once it was published on the web site.

It was agreed the guide upon completion by the Drafting Group would be turned over to the Training Committee for further development and refinement. It was agreed the OOS criteria would have to be reviewed and revised at a later date by CVSA to capture changes being made to the standard. It was agreed either the Drafting Group (if time permits) or the Training Committee would be responsible for undertaking this task. It was agreed the guide should contain information on complying with the standard and demonstrating how to calculate the appropriate number of tiedowns required. The Drafting Group was directed to continue with the same format for the guide as contained in the draft concrete pipe section.

6. Cargo Securement Components - Manufacturing Standards

a) Reference to Other Standards and Organizations

The Co-Chairs sought an update on the status of the work of the various industry associations in support of the standard and with particular reference to marking and rating.

i) Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) - Update

Messrs. Ehrlich and Carr updated participants on the progress being made by the TTMA to update recommended practice RP47 for the marking and rating of trailers. He noted efforts to this date had focused on using the performance criteria in the rule to a "no damage criteria". He noted the clarification to the application of the performance criteria (See Item 5.e of this Record of Decisions) would assist TTMA in completing revisions to their standard. He provided an overview of the testing which had been conducted by TTMA members. Mr. Ehrlich noted the revised RP 47 would be balloted by TTMA members on January 21, 1999 and would be forwarded to the TTMA Board for approval in April 1999.

In the discussion which followed participants inquired where the marking and rating requirements would appear on new trailers. Mr. Ehrlich indicated the intent of TTMA members was to indicate the rating by marking on the walls and bulkhead of new vehicles. This marking requirements as proposed by TTMA were endorsed by the Harmonization Committee. The Co-Chairs urged the TTMA to complete revisions to the recommended practice noting it would be referenced in the final rule to be considered by government agencies in Canada and the United States. It was agreed the latest version of RP 47 would be forwarded to the Drafting Group for review.

ii) Web Sling & Tiedown Association (WSTDA)

Messrs. Takacs and Lucas provided an overview of the work which had been undertaken by the WSTDA to develop marking and rating standards for webbing, winches, and tiedowns. It was noted the full membership would be meeting October 5-6, 1998 to finalize and approve the final WSTDA standards. It was noted the final standards would be released by WSTDA in December. (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). Messrs. Takacs and Lucas updated participants on WSTDA efforts to finalize the standard for internal van specifications noting the requirements should be approved and implemented by summer 1999.

Following discussion it was agreed the final version of the WSTDA standards would be forwarded to the CCMTA Secretariat so they could be properly referenced in the proposed rule. In addition, it was agreed Mr. Takacs would supply the latest version of the internal van specification standard to TTMA and the CCMTA Secretariat for review by the Drafting Group.

Messrs. Takacs and Lucas took the opportunity to thank CCMTA for sponsoring and coordinating the cargo securement harmonization initiative indicating it had been a great experience to work with the other government and industry representatives. The Co-Chairs, on behalf of all the participants, thanked Messrs. Takacs and Lucas for their dedicated efforts in relation to this important road safety initiative.

iii) National Association of Chain Manufacturers (NACM)

Mr. George provided an update on the four issues which had been referred to the Association by the Committee as a result of the Irvine meeting. The NACM membership continued to maintain that unmarked chain should have a default value of zero. He noted all chain was marked and rated by members of the NACM and suggested the enforcement community and users should agree on a reasonable phase-in period for unmarked chain.

He explained the safety factors which were attached to different grades of chain and indicated the membership was reluctant to change the safety factors unless there are compelling documented reasons. He suggested all reference to chain load capacities in the rule should be to working load limits and not the safety factor. He indicated members of the NACM will mark G30 chain. He noted the NACM membership had reviewed the issue of mixing grades of chain to secure the same load and the membership had concluded that as long as the static and dynamic forces do not exceed the working load limits of the chain, mixing of grades is not an unsafe practice. He concluded by indicating the NACM membership was considering adding out of service wear limits for chain to the NACM specifications.

It was acknowledged the Committee would not be following the recommendation of the Chain manufacturers that unmarked chain be given a default value of zero in the current iteration of the standard. It was agreed the issue of when unmarked and unrated chain would be removed from the market would be an issue for the Implementation Committee to resolve. The decision by NACM to mark and emboss grade 30 chain was endorsed by the Harmonization Committee. The NACM decision not to change the safety factors for different grades of chain was debated. It was agreed in the current circumstances the working load limits would have to be used even if the safety factors for some chain was different.

7. Implementation and Maintenance of a Uniform North American Standard

a) Report and Recommendations from the Sub-Committee

Mr. Fiste provided an overview of the second draft of the discussion paper addressing implementation and maintenance issues relative to the North American rule. He noted a sub-committee comprised of industry and government had met on August 27-28, 1998 to review and develop recommendations on the process to be followed to achieve acceptance and uniform adoption of the standard; the mechanism to house and maintain the standard; the process by which interpretations, clarifications and amendments could be made to the standard; and the processes which needed to be followed to ensure the standard is enforced consistently.

In brief, he noted the sub-committee was recommending that upon completion of the development of the standard a commitment be sought from each participating jurisdiction to pursue implementation through the normal rulemaking process, and that each jurisdiction would participate in a coordination mechanism to oversee implementation and ensure consistency in requirements. On the issue of managing the standard the sub-committee was recommending the document containing the requirements be published by a third party (CCMTA/CVSA) and that a Cargo Securement Implementation Committee be jointly established by CCMTA/CVSA with responsibility for ensuring consistency in implementation and interpretation, and for considering future amendments to the standard. On the issue of enforcement consistency the sub-committee was recommending that implementation planning and training for the proposed standard include identification and classification of offences. It was noted the sub-committee was also recommending the proposed cargo securement standard not include recommendations on sanctions, penalties or fines. It was agreed discussion of the recommendations would be deferred until item 7.c).

b) Timing, Process and Milestones

An overview of the timing, process and milestones relative to the implementation strategy was provided. In essence, it was noted the consultation process through the Standards Harmonization Committee would be drawing to a close and that a new consultation process involving all governments would have to be initiated. To this end each jurisdiction would have to take the completed standard and subject it to internal/external validation. In particular, jurisdictions would be requested to indicate whether they are prepared to implement the standard in lieu of their existing provisions and to identify any outstanding issues which needed to be resolved prior to moving forward with implementation. It was noted the sub-committee had prepared a strategy which would allow any "deal breakers" to be identified and jointly resolved by Canadian and US governments as the standard moved through the rulemaking process. It was noted the Canadian consultation process would be initiated in January and would be completed by March 1999, where a meeting between Canadian and US officials would be organized to negotiate any changes prior to the commencement of the formal US rulemaking process. It was noted FHWA would issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in April 1999 and would then convene a series of "listening sessions" through the course of the summer. In September 1999, Canadian and US officials would meet again to address any new issues or changes which had surfaced as a result of the NPRM commentary process. Further work would be undertaken between the two countries with June 2000 selected as the date for full implementation of the North American rule.

c) Open Discussion

A general discussion ensued on the Implementation Planning Report and the recommendations made by the sub-committee.

Some participants queried why the adoption by reference option was not being more fully pursued given the interest which had been expressed by ANSI and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Sub-committee members indicated this option had been extensively reviewed but the government members had indicated there was a requirement for them to publish the full standard in their respective regulations. It was noted a high degree of consistency would be achieved in the US as 30+ jurisdictions adopted US FHWA requirements directly by reference in their legislation. It was noted for Canada each jurisdiction would have to implement the standard and the proposed strategy would allow Canadian jurisdictions to further review the adoption by reference option. Mr. Cooper indicated the CTA would be advocating a single rule and would further pursue the adopt by reference option. It was agreed the first step in the process would be to seek a commitment from jurisdictions to implement the standard.

US stakeholders sought information on whether the schedule would be followed in the US. FHWA officials indicated they would work to meet the deadlines established by the implementation strategy. It was further noted it would be critical that US stakeholders indicate their support for the proposed standard when it is published as an NPRM. FHWA officials undertook to advise US stakeholders of publication of the NPRM using the CCMTA Secretariat mailing list.

Discussion turned on how the issues relating to marking and rating of components and trailers would be addressed. It was noted the Implementation Committee would be tasked with developing this strategy over time along with the mechanism for providing interpretations and a means for amending the standard. Discussion turned on the composition of the Implementation Committee. It was suggested and agreed the composition of the Implementation Committee should initially be kept small to determine jurisdictional acceptance of the proposed standard and to coordinate the jurisdictional rulemaking initiatives. It was noted opportunities for consultations with stakeholders had been built into the implementation strategy. Moreover, it was noted the Implementation Committee was being provided a mandate to convene meetings and to seek out commentary and consensus on the issues included in the terms of reference. It was suggested and agreed the Implementation Committee would use the project web site to post proposals and advise of meetings. It was further noted in the event there were significant changes made to the standard during the implementation process the full Standards Harmonization Committee could be reconvened to address these issues.

A brief discussion ensued on the sub-committee recommendation to task the Implementation Committee with identification and classification (severity) of offences but not to include recommendations for specific sanctions, penalties and fines. In discussion, it was noted securing jurisdictional agreement on fines would be extremely difficult to achieve given that these are frequently established by other agencies in jurisdictions. As a result the sub-committee was recommending only that an effort be made by the Implementation Committee to identify and classify the offences. It was further noted the CVSA out-of-service criteria would have to be reviewed and revised and this activity was the responsibility of the various CVSA Committees and not the Implementation Committee. The Committee endorsed this rationale.

It was agreed the report, implementation strategy and recommendations including the June 2000 implementation date for the North American Cargo Securement standard would be approved by the Committee. In addition, it was agreed a revised terms of reference, work plan and schedule for the North American Cargo Securement Implementation Committee be approved and referred to the appropriate bodies within Canada and the United States for ratification and action.

8. Training / Education Materials

a) Overview

Messrs. Doyle and Strawhorn presented the report from the sub-committee tasked with developing a training and educational plan for shippers, drivers, carriers, and enforcement officers on the proper methods and work practices to load, secure and inspect cargo on North American highways per the new standard. The sub-committee was proposing the training and education materials should be consistent, comprehensive and appropriate for the target audiences and should be produced in English, French, and Spanish. They noted a partnership coordinated by the CCMTA Secretariat was being proposed in which government and industry equally shared the estimated $200,000 US cost of development for the training materials. It was noted contributions of between $5-10 thousand split over 30 partners would cover the necessary expenses. It was noted funds had also been included for the administration of the project. It was suggested upon completion of the first round of consultations on the proposed rule (March 1999), the first meeting of the Training Committee would be convened. They concluded their presentation by indicating training would be a critical and integral component to the success of the North American standard. The Harmonization Committee was being asked to approve the training plan, terms of reference, and milestones for completion of training materials leading up to the June 2000 implementation date for the North American standard.

In discussion, it was agreed the milestones for the proposed Training Committee be adjusted to reflect the decisions made by the Committee relative to the implementation schedule for the standard.(See preceding item)

b) Status of Funding

The Secretariat indicated Messrs. Strawhorn and Doyle had requested a letter be sent to members of the Harmonization Committee seeking a $5,000 or more contribution to the training initiative. He reported the letter had generated commitments to sponsor the training initiative from 5 organizations, with expressions of interest from another 12 potential partners. It was noted some organizations had along with a financial commitment also offered their expertise (WSTDA, WASTEC), while some had offered to take full responsibility for some elements of the program (OOIDA - Video). In addition, a number of organizations (Canadian Trucking Human Resource Council) had expressed an interest in providing the services outlined in the training proposal. The Secretariat concluded the report by suggesting there was some urgency in establishing what level of funding would be made available by the partners as a report would have to be prepared for the upcoming CCMTA meetings.

Messrs. Strawhorn and Doyle indicated both of their organizations would be making a $5,000 contribution to this project. Mr. Schmidt indicated FHWA supported the training initiative and was considering making a contribution of between $20,000 and $30,000. Messrs. Couture (QC) and Oldridge (BC) supported the training plan and noted the request was being considered in their respective jurisdictions. Representatives from the other Canadian jurisdictions in attendance indicated they would initiate the request upon their return. Messrs. Schneider (NY) and Padilla (CA) noted they supported the training plan and would similarly initiate a request for funding. Mr. Moore indicated a decision would be made shortly by the executive of the Aluminum Association. Mr. Takacs (WSTDA), Mr. George (NACM), Mr. Carr (TTMA), and Mr. Legler (WASTEC Foundation) indicated they would initiate funding requests to their respective associations once the training plan was finalized and approved by the Harmonization Committee. Messrs. Hershey and Church indicated they would forward the funding request to their member companies upon completion of the paper roll section.

c) Recommendations and Next Steps

It was agreed the Training Plan would be approved by the Committee. It was agreed the work plan, revised milestones, and Terms of Reference for the Training Committee would be approved. It was agreed all participants would advise the CCMTA Secretariat by December 1998 of the amount their agency would be prepared to contribute to the training venture. It was agreed the initial meeting of the Training Committee would be convened in the Spring of 1999.

9. Update on Regulatory Initiatives - Next Steps for Implementation

a) United States - FHWA Q and A Format

Mr. Thomas provided participants with an overview of the US zero based regulatory project noting FHWA would be writing all of the regulations in FMCSR in a question and answer format. To demonstrate the format he circulated a portion of the cargo securement rules for metal coils written in the Q and A format. He noted all regulatory text would be prefaced by a question followed by the answer which would be in plain language for those which must comply with the requirements.

In response to questions Mr. Thomas indicated the FHWA would take the completed standard from the Harmonization Committee and issue it as a NPRM in the Q and A format. He assured the participants all sections of the draft rule would be reflected in the Q and A format. He further indicated FHWA intended to publish the entire proposed rule developed by the Committee as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the spring of 1999. A commentary period (90-120 days) would be provided and it was likely the rule would go into effect in Spring 2000. He further noted the project research reports would also be made available on the US DOT web site located at www.dms.dot.gov including information on how the hard copy reports could be obtained from CCMTA.

b) Canada - Transport Canada - Anchor Points

Mr. Neufeld noted Transport Canada had republished the Canada Gazette Part 1 notice requiring anchor points on new flat bed trailers with a 1 year lead time for trailer manufacturers to comply. An additional commentary period was being provided due to the elapsed time between the Part 1 Notice and issuance of the Part II Notice.

A number of US stakeholders sought information as to whether NHTSA had been approached to introduce similar requirements in the US. Mr. Thomas indicated NHTSA had declined to consider rulemaking in this area. The potential impact on uniformity was discussed. It was suggested the TTMA revised practice 47 might address a portion of the concern. It was suggested and agreed this issue would be added to the mandate of the Implementation Committee for resolution.

c) Mexico

Mr. Fiste indicated Mexican officials had been invited to attend this meeting but a conflict had prevented participation. He noted material was being provided to the Mexican CVSA representatives who in turn were providing the documents to other officials in SCT. He noted Mexico was monitoring the Project. It was agreed the Implementation Committee should be mandated to further pursue Mexican participation in the joint rulemaking process.

10. Other Business

No other business was identified by the participants.

11. Elements to be Reported to Standing Committee on Compliance and Regulatory Affairs

Mr. McAlister provided a brief overview of CCMTA noting the work of the Harmonization Committee was reported to a permanent Standing Committee which was responsible for motor carrier issues in Canada. He noted Ms. Pelletier would prepare a report for the Standing Committee in November. The report would indicate the proposed rule had been completed with the exception of paper rolls and crushed vehicles. Work plans, terms of reference, and budgets for the Cargo Securement Training and Implementation Committees would be submitted for approval.

12. Next Meeting

A number of stakeholders suggested the Standards Harmonization Committee should not be disbanded as it had provided a forum to bring together all relevant sections of the manufacturing, shipping, regulatory and enforcement communities to discuss and resolve cargo securement issues. A number of members indicated they wished to remain active to see the standard through to implementation.

Mr. Fiste indicated while it would be useful to keep the Committee in place the project was entering another phase where governments would have to meet and determine whether they would be prepared to implement the proposed standard. A number of stakeholders sought information as how they would be informed of the outcome of the Canadian and US consultation processes particularly if there were significant changes made to the rule. It was recommended and agreed the project web site should be maintained for stakeholders to track progress. A number of stakeholders indicated this would still not address the situation where significant changes were brought to the standard. It was noted their organization’s approval of the proposed standard was contingent on it going forward in both countries as currently drafted. Mr. Fiste indicated if significant changes were made to the standard he would review the situation with Ms. Pelletier and perhaps one further meeting of the Harmonization Committee could be convened during the CVSA Spring meetings in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Many of the stakeholders urged the Committee to reconvene noting they wished to have a mechanism by which to lend their support during the implementation phase.

13. Adjournment

Mr. Fiste took the opportunity to thank all of the participants from government and industry for their hard work and dedication throughout the development stage of the standard. He noted they had accomplished something unique and special for Canada and the United States in working cooperatively to develop the North American Cargo Securement standard. He indicated it was his hope the process established for this standard would be replicated on other joint Canada/US road safety issues. Participants expressed their gratitude to the Co-Chairs, the Drafting Group, and CCMTA staff for their hard work throughout the past two years. The meeting was adjourned.