Virtually everyone agrees on the need for safe, reliable, consistent securement of a truck’s cargo. Where fleets, component manufacturers, and North America’s many political jurisdictions have parted company over the years, however, is in the precise definition of what cargo-security equipment and configurations will achieve this goal.

Throw in differing interpretations about how that equipment should be tested and certified, and you could easily end up with a confusing mishmash of inconsistent regulations and inspection criteria as you drove across Canada and the U.S.

Matter of fact, that’s just what happened.

But help is on the way, and if current plans work out, by the middle of next year there will be one load-securement standard in effect across Canada, the United States, and Mexico to which every relevant carrier, manufacturer and government regulator and inspector would adhere.

It’s called the North American Cargo Securement Standard, the latest draft of which runs to more than 30 pages (it’s available online at www.ab.org/ccmta/draft.htm).

It’s been a long haul to wrap and cinch this bureaucratic cargo to its current relatively secure, nearly final status. Started in 1993 with extensive field research and testing, the process was spearheaded by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and U.S.-based Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. It has involved nearly 95 different governmental levels and authorities, plus consultations with truckers and manufacturers of load-securement and trailer equipment.

The proposed standard is in its fourth draft, which sets mandates for anchor points, tiedowns, friction, blocking, and special commodities such as dressed lumber and metal coils. In the United States, Draft 4 will be published in the Federal Register this fall as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, followed by a two- or three-month public comment period. A fifth draft is expected to be the final one.

The expectation is that most Canadian provinces and U.S. states will adopt the final proposal “by reference,” explains John Pearson, the Ottawa-based consultant who serves as secretary to the half-dozen committee representatives actually drafting the document. This legal manoeuvre should avoid the time-consuming and costly need to officially introduce an identical regulation and process it through each jurisdiction’s government. Where this procedure isn’t permitted, and the standard will have to be passed by the legislature or state assembly.

“The critical thing is that every jurisdiction buy into this proposal with no alterations or local exceptions whatsoever,” Pearson emphasizes. “The point of this exercise is to end up with a common set of standards right from Northern Canada to southern Mexico.”

WHAT THE RULES WILL MEAN

Joe Takacs, director of engineering with longtime specialist in cargo-control products Kinedyne Corp., of Lawrence, Kan., has been a committee member since day one. Apart from the obvious benefit of a North-America-wide level playing field, he says the group most affected by the rules won’t be flatdeck carriers, who use securement equipment routinely, but operators of dry-van trailers-who don’t.

Indeed, he says, it was actually some dry-van accidents-steel coils were being carried inside van trailers, not properly secured-that prompted research into the issue of load securement in a wide range of trailers, not just flatdecks.

“Thanks to that earlier research and testing, this new standard gets pretty specific regarding dealing with certain types of cargoes, including metal coils but also things like rolls of paper, boulders, crushed vehicles, dressed and undressed lumber, and so forth,” Takacs adds.

Another key element of the proposed standard is a requirement for companies that produce tie-down equipment to permanently mark their products with the working load limit-in pounds and kilograms for most components, although chain will continue to use its traditional grading system-and a name or symbol that identifies the manufacturer. (In the U.S., federal regulations in 1995 changed the standard criterion for defining securement capacity to “working load limit”-WLL-from the earlier “breaking strength” assessment.)

While manufacturers for the flatbed market already mark their products with this information, there are others-especially those whose products had traditionally been targeted at van-trailer applications-for whom this will be a new requirement, including the cost of testing to establish the WLL.

“That recent change to working load limits was a good move,” Takacs suggests. “In the old days a driver or loader would look at a four-inch-wide strap and see ‘15,000 pounds’ as the rating, and maybe assume that he could use that for a 15,000-pound load. But that would give no safety margin for extra stress from vehicle movement, or to account for wear and tear on the strap. Working load limit is one-third of the breaking point, so that strap would now carry a 5000-pound rating, which is much safer and more realistic.”

Takacs notes that even the new standard will likely allow for some exemptions from the WLL-marking requirement.

It’s not feasible to require the “A,” “E,” and “F”-series track used on the inside walls of van trailers to be marked, because it’s the fitting on the load bar or cargo strap hooked into this track that determines the working load limit.

Similarly, load-lock bars and jack bars have rubber feet that press against the trailer’s interior, and the degree of smoothness of the wall or floor has a significant effect. As a result, such items will be classed as “bracing bars”, and will not have to be marked. Currently, cargo nets are also planned to be exempt.

Other situations pose problems. “For example, if you have a fully loaded van trailer with doors only at the rear, how do you get up front to check the securement of the cargo there?” Takacs notes. “And if the shipper requires that security seals be placed on the doors of that trailer, would the driver be allowed to break them to perform an en-route periodic load-securement check?

The thinking now is that the proposal will have to exempt such situations from the securement-inspection provisions.”

Takacs also highlights these other discussion points related to developing this proposal:

o Chain manufacturers are not affected much by the new standard, but must now mark their Grade-3 chain, and a Grade-100 rating has been added (25% stronger than a Grade-80);

o Concerns still exist regarding how to penalize any component manufacturer who cheats on their rating by marking a higher WLL than is justified by testing;

o Who will maintain and update the standard once it’s completed and issued is yet to be determined – and that’s a key responsibility.

Although not mentioned specifically within the proposed standard, there’s another facet to this whole project that Takacs considers vital: training.

“Once the content of this standard is finalized, we will create a handbook that explains what everything means, and a video as well,” he reveals.

“These are critical elements, because they will help ensure that all government inspectors and other involved parties interpret the standard in the same manner.

“Individual fleets will be able to purchase these kits to train their drivers, and shippers for their loading-dock personnel, and so forth.

“Given the current state of the art in load-securement equipment, and all the effort that’s gone into creating this new standard, I think this regime will carry us through the next 10 to 20 years with very little fundamental alteration,” Takacs feels. “We’re in the home stretch now.”