Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

36 Chapter 3 progresses through a series of discussions on twelve topics to help frame a deeper understanding of ESP, leading to the conclusions. These topics are: 1. Stakeholders and user needs summary; 2. U.S. DOT initiatives related to ESP; 3. Other initiatives and actions related to ESP; 4. Contexts and issues; 5. Discussion of ESP implementation challenges and trade-offs; 6. Electronic commerce system standards and standards bodies/organizations 7. Data creation/intake methods; 8. Existing electronic interchange systems; 9. Current electronic commerce methods meeting hazmat transport user needs, and their challenges; 10. Solution alternatives, 11. Attributes of desired state system; and 12. Gap analysis between current and desired state. 3.1 Stakeholders and User Needs Summary There are four primary stakeholder groups involved with ESP: shippers, carriers, regulatory agencies, and emergency responders. (While freight forwarders work closely with both shippers and carriers, for convenience their role is included with shippers, the group with which they are most closely aligned.) A single hazmat shipment from its origin to destination may involve intermodal transportation, cross international borders, and otherwise engage a number of the stakeholder groups. The interim report contains a more detailed examination of the various stakeholders, their expe- rience with and impressions of ESP, and their interactions with other stakeholders. Shippers and carriers are more concerned with the commercial, logistical, freight management back office nature of ESP benefits. Shippers (who may also be product manufacturers) offer hazmat for delivery to a consignee. They verify that the shipment complies not only with 49 CFR but other mode-specific regulations. Business operations need additional information such as information on non- hazardous materials, other parties in the supply chain, billing and financial data, and expected delivery time. Carriers accept shipments and execute the contracted needs of the shipper, transporting the goods to the consignee or to an interline carrier. As a general statement, regulatory compliance/enforcement and emergency response personnel need situational, front-end access to information about the contents of a shipment. This group may include roadside inspectors. Policy-wise, there are a number of government organizations such as EPAs (whether federal or state) and other government organizations that issue regulations. It should be noted that no other federal or state agency can mandate specific shipping documents because the U.S. DOT has preemptive authority for all hazmat in transportation. Emergency responders primarily need specific information on the materials present, types of containers, quantities of materials, and potential interactions with other materials in the shipment. Table 3 characterizes the basic user needs for each primary stakeholder group. 3.1.1 Hazmat Transport Stakeholder Organizations and Trade Associations This subsection describes organizations and trade asso- ciations representing the four main stakeholder groups involved in ESP, their roles, and their needs. It should be noted that this listing is not intended to be all-inclusive; rather it identifies illustrative larger, more nationally known organizations. C H A P T E R 3 Findings and Applications

37 3.1.1.1 U.S. Shipper and Carrier Industry Associations and Working Groups: Initiatives Related to Electronic Commerce A number of associations across the marine, trucking, rail, and air communities, along with the key shipper orga- nizations, are primarily focused on policy development. Most associations have stated support for electronic data inter change to improve safety, security, operational efficiency, and regulatory compliance. Some associations interviewed pointed to continued impediments to more efficient electronic commerce. Even with key electronic commerce initiatives such as the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA’s) e-freight and the rail industry’s almost complete use of paperless transactions via EDI (reportedly over 95%), conflict points or impediments exist. E-commerce may not be widely embraced by the freight forwarder community, who see it as creating more work for them to provide more efficiency for the beneficiary carrier. There are some major global forwarders who have been and are adopting IATA e-freight. As mentioned in Subsection 1.2.1, the largest freight forwarders have invested in proprietary systems and developed IT systems that com- municate on behalf of shippers and customers. Even with the rail industry’s high penetration, intermodal partners in marine and trucking point to rail’s use of Standard Transpor- tation Commodity Code (STCC) as an impediment to multi- modal adoption. IATA’s e-freight and the International Vessel Operators Dan- gerous Goods Association’s (IVODGA’s) Removing Inter modal Impediments to Dangerous Goods & Hazmat Shipping have focused on efficient multimodal data interchange. Their work- ing groups have involved collaboration across several modes. Table 4 lists and characterizes hazmat transportation industry trade associations. 3.1.1.2 Regulatory Organizations (Customs and Safety Compliance) Regulatory stakeholders. Regulatory stakeholders are composed of representatives from both government and the pri- vate sector. The government sector includes agencies that devel- op and enforce hazmat regulations as well as those whose func- tion is to ensure that the regulations are enforced as efficiently and effectively as possible. The primary enforcement agency for hazmat transportation in the United States is the U.S. DOT. However, since the agency is composed of administrations with distinctive functions, any useful description of the U.S. DOT must be broken down to a discussion of the various admin- istrations. These include modal administrations such as the FHWA, FAA, and FRA and safety administrations such as FMCSA and PHMSA. A key agency responsible for border safety and security is the CBP. Other North American federal organizations include Transport Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the Mexican Secretariat of Commu- nications and Transportation (Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes, or SCT), and Mexican Customs (Aduanas). Regulatory stakeholders in the private sector are com- posed of organizations whose members have a strong inter- est in ensuring that regulations are developed that will best accomplish their intended purpose, and that once promulgated, Table 3. User needs characterization. Stakeholder Group User Needs Shippers • In-transit visibility • Data sharing with supply chain partners • Regulatory compliance • Paperwork reduction/reduced administrative expense • Hazmat/dangerous goods shipping paper creation • Commercial information security Carriers • In-transit visibility • In-transit records compliance • Paperwork reduction/reduced administrative expense • Data sharing with authorized interlines • Record retention compliance • BOL, manifest, and freight bill creation • Commercial information security • Anti-theft/-sabotage/-terrorism security Regulators • In-transit records compliance • Record retention compliance • Shipment, vehicle, and driver documentation Emergency responders • Specific information on materials present, types of containers, material quantities, and how to get timely expert information on potential interactions with other materials in the shipment • Awareness of product name • Emergency contact information • Receipt of information quickly and ideally at safe stand-off distance

38 Table 4. Industry trade associations and characterization. Organization Name/Website Industry Served Electronic Commerce Initiatives Impact/Initiatives Related to Hazardous Materials/ Dangerous Goods ESP International Air Transport Association (IATA): www.iata.org Passenger and cargo airlines • IATA publishes transportation standards [Cargo Interchange Message Procedure (i.e., Cargo-IMP)] focused on communications with airlines. • XML standards development • E -freight has replaced 20 commercial and regulatory documents with electronic equivalents. Focus is on expanding the number of users. • Member of the Global Air Council Advisory Group (GACAG) • Declaration for Dangerous Goods Data message included among the IATA standards. • IATA has developed XML requirements of the Shippers’ Declaration for Dangerous Goods data standards (SDDG-XML). • Dangerous goods declaration among the IATA e-freight electronic document forms available. Air Forwarders Association (AFA): www.airforwarders.org Air forwarding: indirect air carriers, cargo airlines, and affiliated businesses Supportive of electronic data interchange and the Electronic Universal Waybill Included among electronic commerce position Airlines for America (A4A) (formerly Air Transport Association): www.airlines.org Airline Supportive of electronic data interchange Included among electronic commerce position International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations (FIATA): www.fiata.com International forwarding and logistics Supportive of electronic data interchange Member of GACAG Included among electronic commerce position International Air Cargo Association (TIACA): www.tiaca.org Air cargo industry, including airlines, forwarders, airports, ground handlers, trucking companies, customs brokers, third- party logistics forms Supportive of electronic data interchange in international air cargo, involvement in electronic commerce standards development, member of GACAG Included among electronic commerce position Global Air Cargo Advisory Group Air cargo industry group that includes IATA, TIACA, FIATA, and GSF Supportive of electronic data interchange in international air cargo, involvement in electronic commerce standards development Included among electronic commerce position National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC): www.tanktruck.org Tank truck carriers Supportive of electronic data interchange Included among electronic commerce position Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA): www.cvsa.org North American government and industry motor vehicle safety and security Information Systems Committee addresses commercial motor vehicle information system needs of CVSA. Hazardous Materials and Information Systems Committee explores initiatives and new technologies. American Trucking Associations (ATA): www.truckline.com Trucking Supportive of electronic data interchange Included among electronic commerce position Association of American Railroads (AAR): www.aar.org North American railroads Promotes use of electronic data interchange AAR’s RailInc subsidiary is a leading provider of electronic data interchange for the rail industry Automatic Equipment. Identification (AEI) Committees include EDI Technical Advisory Group (TAG). Committees include Hazardous Materials Bureau of Explosives (BOE) committee. American Waterways Operators (AWO): www.americanwaterways.com Tugboat, towboat, and barge operators No electronic commerce initiatives indicated None stated

39 these regulations will be enforced effectively. Prominent private- sector organizations are represented by such organizations as Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) and the World Customs Organization (WCO). Regulatory stakeholders in the private sector also include trade associations that include regulatory concerns among a suite of priorities such as busi- ness and competitive issues. These organizations typically represent a particular mode or modal niche. The ATA, AAR, and IATA represent this type of stakeholder. Table 5 lists and briefly describes representative regulatory stakeholders in the public and private sectors. The list has been designed to select those regulatory stakeholders considered to be the most important and influential. Table 5 includes stakeholder organizations representing all of the major modes in both the public and private sectors. CVSA and WCO also appear in Table 4 as trade associations. 3.1.1.3 Emergency Responder Stakeholder Organizations and Associations Emergency responder organizations represent firefighters, emergency responders, paramedics, and other emergency Table 4. (Continued). International Vessel Operators Dangerous Goods Association (IVODGA): www.ivodga.com [formerly Vessel Operators Hazardous Material Association (VOHMA)] Ocean common carriers Working with international, government, and industry partners to develop and implement a program to remove impediments to intermodal/international transportation and facilitate e- commerce Association’s focus is solely on dangerous goods/hazmat. Removing Intermodal Impediments to Dangerous Goods & Hazmat Shipping program addresses standards development and use of the multimodal shipper’s declaration. The initiative has involved representatives from all modes of transportation. Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC): www.hmac.org All carrier modes No electronic commerce initiatives indicated Nonprofit organization devoted to promoting safety in the national and international transportation of dangerous goods Organization Name/Website Industry Served Electronic Commerce Initiatives Impact/Initiatives Related to Hazardous Materials/ Dangerous Goods ESP American Chemistry Council (ACC): www.americanchemistry.com Chemical industry, including manufacturing, transportation, and distribution No electronic commerce initiatives indicated None stated National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD): www.nacd.com Chemical distribution, including distributors, manufacturers, carriers, and service providers No electronic commerce initiatives indicated None stated Global Shippers Forum (GSF): http://globalshippersforum.com International organizations with members from more than 50 countries Part of GACAG None stated Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA): http://www.costha.com Industry association of global companies that are involved in the manufacture and transport of hazmat/dangerous goods No electronic commerce initiatives indicated Participates with IVODGA and U.S. DOT on the Removing Intermodal Impediments to Dangerous Goods & Hazmat Shipping initiative Institute of Hazardous Materials Management (IHMM): http://www.ihmm.org Not-for-profit organization that administers credentials in hazmat management No electronic commerce initiatives indicated None stated Alliance of Hazardous Materials Professionals (AHMP): http://www.achmm.org Leading experts in environmental, health, safety, and security management; hazmat; and waste management No electronic commerce initiatives indicated None stated

40 Regulatory Stakeholders in the Public Sector (U.S. DOT) kcurTvog.tod.ascmf.www//:ptth:ASCMF FMCSA’s mission is to prevent commercial motor-vehicle-related fatalities and injuries. Encourages strong enforcement of regulations and develops new regulations llAvog.tod.asmhp.www//:ptth:ASMHP PHMSA works to protect the public and the environment by ensuring the safe and secure movement of hazmat to industry and consumers. Develops and enforces regulations for the safe transport of hazmat. riAvog.aaf.www//:ptth:AAF FAA ensures safety and security of airline operations in the United States. The FAA has enforced hazardous-materials regulations for aviation since the passage of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act in the late 1970s. liaRvog.tod.arf.www//:ptth:ARF FRA administers railroad assistance programs and conducts research and development in support of improved railroad safety. The FRA promulgates and enforces rail safety regulations. Regulatory Stakeholders in the Public Sector (U.S. Department of Homeland Security) eniraMlim.gcsu.www//:ptth:GCSU The USCG is the only military organization within DHS. The USCG protects the marine economy and the environment, and rescues those in peril. Ensures enforcement of hazmat regulations with a focus on pollution prevention and mitigation llAvog.pbc.www//:ptth:PBC One of the DHS’s largest components, with a priority mission of keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the U.S. It also has a responsibility for securing and facilitating trade and travel. The agency enforces hundreds of U.S. regulations, including those related to the safe shipment of all cargoes at ports of entry. Also conducts the ACE program that uses e-manifests. eloRyrotalugeRycnegAfonoitpircseDedoMemaNycnegA eloRyrotalugeRycnegAfonoitpircseDedoMemaNycnegA Table 5. Representative regulatory stakeholders in the public and private sectors and their characterization. medical personnel. These organizations help members prepare for, respond to, and recover from all emergencies, disasters, and threats to the security of the United States, including hazmat incidents. They may provide leadership, professional develop- ment, networking, and lobbying. There are safety and security aspects of ESP information for all four stakeholder groups. However, the HMCRP Project 05 SOW notes that “shipping papers also contain specific hazard information, standardized so that emergency responders may identify appropriate measures to be taken in the event of a hazmat incident.” Thus, emergency responders are a stake- holder group that has special needs and expectations of an ESP implementation beyond aspects of commerce or regula- tory concerns. Table 6 lists the major stakeholder organizations associated with emergency preparedness and response involv- ing hazmat incidents.

41 3.2 U.S. DOT Initiatives Related to ESP The following U.S. DOT initiatives are related to the objec- tives of HMCRP Project 05 in particular and to ESP in general. 3.2.1 Hazardous Materials – Automated Cargo Communications for Efficient and Safe Shipments (HM-ACCESS) A related initiative that was in progress concurrently with the HMCRP Project 05 research is PHMSA’s HM-ACCESS program. Per the program’s Roadmap brochure (15): The HM-ACCESS initiative aims to identify and eliminate bar- riers to the use of paperless tracking and hazard communica- tions technologies, thereby: 1. Improving the availability and accuracy of hazard and response information for shipments and packages which are tracked electronically; 2. Improving the speed by which information is available to emergency responders when accidents occur; 3. Improving the security of imported containers through bet- ter knowledge of shipments and reduced potential for diver- sion; and 4. Allowing American companies to compete more effectively in the global economy by using the best tools available. PHMSA held an HM-ACCESS public meeting on Octo- ber 12 and 13, 2009. Its purpose was to give stakehold- ers an opportunity to provide input to the HM-ACCESS initiative and its planned demonstration project. The four dozen participant entities included federal, state, military, and other government organizations; safety Regulatory Stakeholders in the Public Sector (Non-U.S. Entities) eloRyrotalugeRycnegAfonoitpircseDedoMemaNycnegA CBSA: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca All This federal agency is responsible for law enforcement and customs services at the border. Enforces customs regulations to ensure the safe and secure transfer of cargo. Also conducts the ACI program that uses e- manifests. Aduanas: http://www.aduanas.gob.mx/aduana_mexico/2011/home.asp All This Mexican federal agency, the counterpart of CBP, is responsible for law enforcement, customs, and immigration services at the border. Enforces customs and immigration regulations Regulatory Stakeholders in the Private Sector eloRyrotalugeRycnegAfonoitpircseDedoMemaNycnegA kcurTgro.asvc.www:ASVC Nonprofit organization of federal, state, and provincial government agencies and representatives from private industry in the United States, Canada, and Mexico Serves to bring together state/provincial and Mexican officials with truck/bus industry interest and federal governments to solve problems related to ensuring highway safety. llAmth.emoh/gro.dmoocw.www:OCW The only intergovernmental organization exclusively focused on customs matters. Recognized as the voice of the global customs community. Noted for its work in development of global standards. The enhancement of customs enforcement and compliance activities Table 5. (Continued).

42 Table 6. Emergency responder organizations, associations, and characterization. noitazinagrOfonoitpircseDemaNnoitazinagrO /Role International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC): http://www.iafc.org IAFC represents the leadership of over 1.2 million firefighters and emergency responders. IAFC members are experienced in firefighting, emergency medical services, terrorism response, hazmat spills, natural disasters, and search and rescue. IAFC provides a forum for its members to exchange ideas and information related to the above-mentioned competencies as well as about new products and services available to emergency responders. International Association of Firefighters (IAFF): http://www.iaff.org IAFF represents more than 298,000 full-time professional firefighters and paramedics who serve 85% of the nation’s population. In addition to city and county firefighters and emergency medical personnel, the IAFF represents state employees, federal workers, and fire and emergency medical workers employed at certain industrial facilities. International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM): http://www.iaem.com IAEM, which has more than 5,000 members worldwide, is a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to promoting the “principles of emergency management” and representing those professionals whose goals are saving lives and protecting property and the environment during emergencies. IAEM’s mission is to advance the profession by promoting the principles of emergency management, as well as serving their members by providing information, networking, and professional development opportunities. Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Response Association (DERA): http://www.disasters.org DERA is a membership organization founded as a nonprofit association linking professionals, volunteers, and organizations active in all phases of disaster preparedness and emergency management. DERA remains an independent, nongovernmental organization with dual missions of professional support and disaster service. DERA also provides extensive networking opportunities for its members and has been actively involved in providing emergency assistance in response to several recent disasters. National Emergency Management Association (NEMA): http://www.nemaweb.org NEMA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) association dedicated to enhancing public safety by improving the nation’s ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from all emergencies, disasters, and security threats. NEMA is the professional association for emergency management directors from all 50 states, eight U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. NEMA provides expertise in comprehensive emergency management, serves as an emergency management information and assistance resource, and advances emergency management through strategic partnerships and innovative programs. American Chemistry Council, Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response (TRANSCAER): http://www.transcaer.com TRANSCAER is a voluntary national outreach effort that focuses on assisting communities to prepare for and to respond to a possible hazmat transportation incident. TRANSCAER members consist of volunteer representatives from the chemical manufacturing, transportation, distributors, and emergency response industries, as well as the government. American Chemistry Council, CHEMTREC: http://www.chemtrec.com CHEMTREC is an information resource and solutions provider for hazmat response. CHEMTREC serves as a 24-hour emergency call center resource for obtaining immediate response information for incidents involving hazmat. CHEMTREC is linked to the largest network of chemical and hazmat experts in the world, including chemical and response specialists, public emergency services, and private contractors. CHEMTREC also assists shippers of hazmat with compliance with government regulations. Transport Canada, CANUTEC: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/canutec/menu.htm CANUTEC is an arm of Transport Canada (the Canadian counterpart to U.S. DOT) that gives expert advice on dangerous goods accidents to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods by all modes of transport in Canada. Spill Center: http://www.spillcenter.com Spill Center is a nationwide, 24-hour emergency resource organization dedicated to reducing environmental liability for companies that become spill generators. The Spill Center website provides spill generators with information on cleanup contractors as well as guidance for completing all required regulatory reports and how to thoroughly document incidents. Chlorine Institute, Inc. (CI): http://www.chlorineinstitute.org CI is a technical trade association of companies that are involved in the production, distribution, and use of chlorine, sodium and potassium hydroxides, and sodium hypochlorite, and the distribution and use of hydrogen chloride. Because of chlorine’s nature, its widespread and varied use, and the potentially serious consequences associated with a release, the promotion of its safe handling has long been an accepted responsibility of its producers, packagers, distributors, and users. CI is the focal point for their combined efforts. CI’s North American producer members account for a majority of the total chlorine production capacity of the U.S. and Canada.

43 associations; industrial companies and associations; and a media organization. PHMSA has benefitted HMCRP Proj- ect 05 by sharing the minutes and briefings from the meet- ing and associated workshops, which supplemented and strengthened project interview and other research findings. The specific HM-ACCESS design that will result is being determined; many current and developmental systems that are relevant are mentioned in the HM-ACCESS road map. A dialogue was opened between HMCRP Project 05 participants and HM-ACCESS management to facilitate cooperation. 3.2.2 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Strategic Research Plan, 2010–2014 The ITS Strategic Research Plan (16) describes a number of related initiatives that are listed in the following, some of which involve V2V, V2I, and I2V communication for safety using dedicated short-range communications (DSRC). 3.2.2.1 Connected Vehicle Program Connected vehicle mobility applications provide a con- nected, data-rich travel environment. The network captures real-time data from equipment located on board vehicles (automobiles, trucks, and buses) and within the infrastruc- ture. The data are transmitted wirelessly and are used by transportation managers in a wide range of dynamic, multi- modal applications to manage the transportation system for optimal performance. One of the visions for the Connected Vehicle Program is to participate in international standards harmonization activities focusing on standards “around the vehicle platform”—that is, any standards needed to provide connectivity between vehicles and between vehicles and infrastructure. 3.2.2.2 Dynamic Mobility Applications Program The DMA program seeks to identify, develop, and deploy applications that leverage the full potential of connected vehicles, travelers, and infrastructure to enhance current operational practices and transform future surface trans- portation system management. DMA are the next generation of applications that transform mobility by providing trans- portation managers and system operators with real-time monitoring and management tools to manage mobility between and across modes more effectively and provide travelers the ability for dynamic decision making. These applications capi- talize on vehicle infrastructure connectivity (e.g., data from vehicle probes and other real-time DSRC and non-DSRC data sources). The vision for DMA research is to provide significant improvements to mobility by (1) introducing innovative methods for operating existing transportation systems based on the availability of new data sources and communications methods, and (2) creating opportunities for greater multi- modal integration. One DMA area of interest is electronic manifest data collected from commercial vehicles that are involved in an incident that would help to identify load contents and whether there are hazmat risks. U.S. DOT’s DMA program wants to develop a feature called Incident Scene Pre-Arrival Staging Guidance for Emergency Responders. U.S. DOT recognizes that providing situational awareness to public safety responders while en route can help establish incident work zones that are safe for responders, travelers, and crash victims alike while being less disruptive to traffic. Situational awareness information can also provide valuable input to responder and dispatcher decisions and actions. There are a range of data elements related to situational awareness that are cur- rently available from public and private sources that could be accessed, processed, and provided to public safety responders. This application would provide a range of data to responders through their mobile devices to help support public safety Table 6. (Continued). noitazinagrOfonoitpircseDemaNnoitazinagrO /Role AHMP: http://www.achmm.org AHMP, formerly the Academy of Certified Hazardous Materials Managers (ACHMM), is a professional association with a membership of more than 4,000 experts in environmental, health, safety, and security management. AHMP is the only national organization devoted to the professional advancement of the hazmat management field. Hazardous Materials Association http://www.hazmatbc.ca The Hazardous Materials Association is a nonprofit association of professional contractors and other concerned organizations or individuals involved in the hazmat industry in British Columbia. It promotes compliance with regulatory board requirements through education, training, and support for the voluntary standardization and upgrading of hazmat handling procedures. The Hazardous Materials Association represents the interests of its members by providing a forum for discussing issues relevant to the hazmat handling industry.

44 responder vehicle routing, staging, and secondary dispatch decision making. Among the many data elements desired are: • Current weather conditions that would help responders avoid staging downwind from hazmat incidents. • Electronic manifest data collected from commercial vehicles that are involved in an incident that would help to identify load contents and whether there are hazmat risks. • Crash data generated though in-vehicle systems that can assist responders. Examples of these data are the number of passengers, seat belt usage, airbag status, point of impact, type of vehicle involved (e.g., alternate fuel vehicle), air-bag deployment, types and location of airbags within vehicle, and delta velocity of vehicle involved in crash. 3.2.2.3 Smart Roadside and Wireless Roadside Initiatives U.S. DOT continues to develop the Smart Roadside Initia- tive (SRI), which is a partnership of the FHWA and FMCSA. The SRI is the development of roadside infrastructure for commercial vehicle operations that employs technologies for information sharing. In the vision for SRI, commercial vehicles, motor carriers, enforcement resources, highway facilities, intermodal facilities, toll facilities, and other nodes of the transportation system collect data for their own purposes and share the data seamlessly with relevant parties in order to improve motor carrier safety, security, operational efficiency, and freight mobility. This vision will be achieved through the application of interoperable technologies and information sharing between in-vehicle, on-the-road, and freight facility systems. The SRI thus has potential as a means by which ESP for hazmat being hauled by a commercial vehicle could be passed to a roadside inspection station operated by a regula- tory agency. FMCSA is also conducting the Wireless Roadside Inspection (WRI) initiative. The WRI initiative is intended to provide FMCSA investigators and inspectors with a greater amount of information when auditing a motor carrier or inspecting a motor carrier’s vehicle. In recognition of the importance of standardized data, FMCSA has developed a set of safety data message sets transmitted by DSRC, which may provide a foundation for providing hazmat information during roadside inspections. 3.2.3 Commercial Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (CVII) Program As an effort related to the ITS strategic plan initia- tives described in Subsection 3.2.2, the State of New York Department of Transportation has a program known as the Commercial Vehicle Infrastructure Integration initiative. At its foundation is a network that uses DSRC to support V2I and I2V communications for cooperative system capabil- ity. CVII is another example of an initiative by which it may someday be possible to have information on hazmat cargo remotely passed via V2I communications from a truck to a transponder that uploads the hazmat information to a regu- latory agency station. 3.3 Other Initiatives and Actions Related to ESP 3.3.1 IATA E-Freight IATA launched its e-freight initiative in late 2004. IATA e-freight is designed to free the air cargo supply chain from the up to 38 pieces of paper than can accompany the average air freight shipment. IATA e-freight has been aligned with the WCO and the UN customs modernization initiatives. IATA e-freight has launched local implementation pilot programs on key trade lanes linking a number of participating countries in support of the industry’s desire to free the airfreight supply chain of the need to transport paper in parallel with freight. IATA is also working with industry and other governments to benchmark innovative e-customs initiatives. IATA collaborates with regu- latory authorities, civil aviation authorities, freight forwarders, carriers, and airports. IATA does not provide an e-commerce system but rather a standardized messaging process. Much about the process IATA has followed to encourage e-commerce adoption appears applicable to ESP implementation. 3.3.2 IVODGA–U.S. DOT Partnership Initiative: Removing Intermodal Impediments to Dangerous Goods & Hazmat Shipping The objective of this joint initiative is to work with govern- ment and industry partners to develop and implement a pro- gram to remove impediments to intermodal/international transportation and facilitate e-commerce (17). The working group and other volunteers supporting this initiative are from the ocean carrier, rail, trucking, and air cargo industry compa- nies and associations; U.S. DOT modal and safety adminis- trations; and the USCG. Among other results, their efforts have explored a list of data elements needed for interoperability of dangerous goods transport documentation. 3.3.3 Rotterdam Rules The Rotterdam Rules of 2009 (i.e., United Nations Conven- tion on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea) provide a legal framework that takes into account the many technological and commercial devel-

45 opments that have occurred in marine transport since the adoption of those earlier conventions, including the devel- opment of electronic transport documents and facilitating e-commerce through the use of electronic documentation (18). 3.3.4 Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) The GHS is a worldwide initiative to promote standard criteria for classifying chemicals according to their health, physical, and environmental hazards (19). The GHS will help ensure more consistency in the classification and labeling of all chemicals, thereby improving and simplifying hazard communication. The GHS is not a regulation or a standard; compliance with the GHS is voluntary for each country, but companies in countries that do not adopt the GHS will be at a disadvantage when doing business internationally. The GHS is due out in 2015, and every participating country will have provided a variant of the MSDS. 3.3.5 TSA Highway Security-Sensitive Materials (HSSM) Security Action Items (SAIs) TSA provides voluntary security practices as measures that should be considered for implementation by motor carriers transporting Tier 1 HSSM and Tier 2 HSSM (20). The HSSM are lists of hazmat classes/division and associated quantities transported by motor carriers that are of greatest interest to TSA for security reasons (21). If the motor carrier adopts these security practices, TSA recommends that the practices be included in security plans when they are devel- oped, implemented, and revised. The security practices are voluntary in order to allow highway motor carriers to adopt measures best suited to their particular circumstances, pro- vided the measures are consistent with existing regulations, laws, or directives. 3.3.6 TSA Trucking and Freight Rail Security Grant Programs Starting in 2008, TSA has awarded grants under its Truck- ing Security Program (22) and Freight Rail Security Program (23, 24) designed to strengthen the nation’s critical infra- structure against risks associated with terrorism. For trucking security, these grants focused on the purchase and installation or enhancement of equipment and systems related to tractor and trailer tracking systems. The trucking security grants supported the adoption and implementation of security initia- tives such as tractor and trailer tracking systems, panic button capability, tractor activation capability, and communications plans, as well as the development of security plans and moni- toring and analysis systems and centers. The freight rail security grants provided funding to Class I, II, and III railroad operators that transport rail security- sensitive materials (RSSM) (i.e., bulk PIH/TIH) through designated “high-threat urban areas” to perform vulnerability assessments and security plans and/or conduct security training for railroad frontline employees. The freight rail security grant program also funded owners and offerors of railcars that ship PIH/TIH to acquire and install GPS locating and alert-reporting systems on those railcars, and to owners of rail bridges that span the Western Rivers System. 3.4 Contexts and Issues This section begins with a characterization of hazmat transport by mode to provide context. It then expands on findings from earlier interviews to identify and explore key considerations that bear on the road map solution. These considerations are real-world influences or conditions that must be factored into the road map concept. Despite the dif- ficulties of implementing ESP, there are no logical or legal impediments involved. However, the research recognizes that a single solution that will meet the needs of all stakeholder groups to an appreciable degree would be very difficult to achieve, and for it to even be possible, considerable trade-offs must be considered. Thus, the research promotes the benefits of a unified ESP system view that supports interoperability and exchange of standardized e-commerce for hazmat trans- portation of all carrier modes, carrier types, and hazmat classes without duplicate data entry. Some of the foremost impediments to hazmat ESP imple- mentation are the same impediments to ESP in general. Industry groups are reluctant to implement e-commerce until they believe it will significantly improve their operations by simplifying business, improving service, and reducing costs (25). For example, at a high level these impediments include resistance to change, complex processes, and lack of an entity to bring stakeholders together and encourage and compel them. Currently the beneficiary of e-commerce tends not to bear the cost of ESP, and thus the resulting sender-pay model does not encourage implementation. IT solutions are focused on taking away paper, but not necessarily the paperwork; while documents can be made electronic, if they have to be read anyway for accuracy, the cost–benefit advantage of elec- tronic transmission is diminished. Taking a process that is done manually and making it electronic will not work as well as changing the process. Too many solutions are focused on a single method; there is not a one-size-fits-all solution that has arisen, which is why there is a market for companies to reformat or trans- late ESP. There is resistance to central tracking or a central

46 database, which is largely due to the perceived possibility of comingling or other inadvertent disclosure of company business-sensitive information such as its customer base and shipment origin–destination information. Requirements for systems that will significantly add to transportation costs in a fiercely competitive marketplace are a concern (i.e., as an unfunded mandate). The following topics examine these and a number of other key challenges. 3.4.1 Characterization of Hazmat Classes by Mode of Transport Statistics on the annual hazmat ton-miles shipped in the United States can be obtained from the 2007 hazmat Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) published by the U.S. Census Bureau, whether via the American FactFinder source (26), the U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) 2007 CFS Hazmat Report (27), or the BTS’s Hazardous Materials Highlights for the 2007 CFS (28). Table 7 (29) shows hazmat shipments by mode in 2007, including pipeline (a mode that is not relevant to ESP). Table 7 is extracted from Table 1a of the 2007 CFS. The bolded entries sum to the totals shown in the first row. The entries below these bolded entries show the major components of the totals. The “Air” row totals for ton-miles are considered too uncertain to show but are included in the total ton-miles, rows 1 and 2. The estimated ton-miles for pipelines are also included in the totals but are not shown in the “Pipelines” row because of uncertainty arising from the unavailability of the pipeline network map in the public domain. The pipeline estimate included in the totals takes into consideration the origin and destination zip codes and the great circle route distance between them. For these reasons, some air and pipeline entries in Table 7 are shown as having insufficient data. Table 8 (30) compares characteristics of hazardous and nonhazardous materials shipments, by mode and by tons and ton-miles. Table 8 is extracted from Table 4 of the 2007 CFS. As with Table 7, the hazmat totals include contributions from air and pipeline that are shown in the totals in rows 1 and 2 but not in the rows showing the individual air and pipeline entries. Table 9, condensed from Table 8, presents for each major mode the total ton-miles of all cargo shipped and the number of ton-miles represented by hazmat transport, also provided as a rounded percentage. Table 9 shows that hazmat carried as a percentage of total ton-miles is 8% and 7%, respectively, for both highway and rail transport, and 24% for ocean transport. There is not sufficient information for a similar comparison with air transport. Table 10 illustrates the top four classes and divisions of hazmat transported by mode. Mode of Transportation Value (Million $) Tons (Thousands) Ton-Miles (Millions) Average Miles per Shipment 69754,323331,132,2812,844,1latoT Single modes 1,370,615 2,111,622 279,105 65 95799,301528,202,1470,738kcurT For-hire truck 358,792 495,077 63,288 214 Private truck 478,282 707,748 40,709 32 875961,29347,921312,96liaR 383460,73497,941681,96retaW Air (includes truck and air) 1,735 S S 1,095 SS509,826804,393enilepiP Multiple modes 71,069 111,022 42,886 834 Parcel, U.S. Postal Service, or courier 7,675 236 151 836 Truck and rail 7,052 11,706 10,120 779 Truck and water 23,451 36,588 12,380 1,020 Rail and water 5,153 5,742 2,937 1,506 Other multiple modes 27,739 56,750 17,297 233 Other and unknown modes 6,534 8,489 1,466 58 S = Insufficient data to estimate Table 7. Hazmat shipments by mode in 2007.

47 Mode of Transportation Tons Ton-Miles Total (Thousands) Hazardous Percentage Nonhazardous Percentage Total (Millions) Hazardous Percentage Nonhazardous Percentage Total 12,543,425 17.8 82.2 3,344,658 9.7 90.3 Single Modes 11,699,128 18.1 81.9 2,894,251 9.6 90.4 Truck 8,778,713 13.7 86.3 1,342,104 7.7 92.3 For-hire truck 4,075,136 12.1 87.9 1,055,646 6.0 94.0 Private truck 4,703,576 15.0 85.0 286,457 14.2 85.8 Rail 1,861,307 7.0 93.0 1,344,040 6.9 93.1 Water 403,639 37.1 62.9 157,314 23.6 76.4 Air (includes truck and air) 3,611 S 90.2 4,510 S 96.1 Pipeline 650,859 96.6 3.4 S S S Multiple modes 573,729 19.4 80.6 416,642 10.3 89.7 Parcel, U.S Postal Service, or courier 33,900 0.7 99.3 27,961 0.5 99.5 Truck and rail 225,589 5.2 94.8 196,772 5.1 94.9 Truck and water 145,521 25.1 74.9 98,396 12.6 87.4 Rail and water 54,878 10.5 89.5 47,111 6.2 93.8 Other multiple modes 113,841 49.8 50.2 46,402 37.3 62.7 Other and unknown modes 271,567 3.1 96.9 33,764 4.3 95.7 S = Insufficient data to estimate Table 8. Hazardous versus nonhazardous materials shipment characteristics by mode of transportation in 2007. Mode Total Ton-Miles (Millions) – All Cargo Total Ton-Miles (Millions) – Hazmat Percentage of Hazmat Ton-Miles to All Cargo Ton-Miles Highway 1,342,104 103,997 8% Rail 1,344,040 92,169 7% Ocean 157,314 37,064 24% Air 4510 (S) (S) S = Insufficient data to estimate Table 9. Hazmat transport as a percentage of total ton-miles by mode. snoisiviD/sessalCtamzaHedoM Highway Class 3: Flammable Liquid and Combustible Liquid Division 2.2: Nonflammable Gas Class 8: Corrosive Materials Class 9: Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods Rail Class 3: Flammable Liquid and Combustible Liquid Class 8: Corrosive Materials Division 2.1: Flammable Gas Class 9: Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods Ocean Class 3: Flammable Liquid and Combustible Liquid Class 8: Corrosive Materials Class 9: Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods Division 2.1: Flammable Gas Air Class 7: Radioactive Materials S S S S = Insufficient data to estimate Table 10. Top classes/divisions of hazmat transported by mode.

48 Table 11 summarizes the top five hazmat substances shipped by mode, ranked from left to right. The percent- ages are the percentage of total ton-miles shipped via that mode. Materials used for fuel dominate the highway and ocean (marine) mode, representing over 70% of the highway transport and 84% of the ocean transport. For rail, sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide represent a significant fraction of the ton-miles shipped. Because of the time-sensitive nature of radioactive shipments, primarily for medical purposes, radioactive material shipments represent the biggest single class of materials shipped by air. These data are from the CFS on shipments performed in 2007 and published in 2008. Since 2008, the number of shipments of ethanol by rail has increased significantly; if the survey were taken in 2011, the flammable liquids category probably would be one of the five most commonly shipped materials by rail. The data in Table 10 and Table 11 (viewed in the context of Table 9) show that the related cargos of gasoline, flammable liquids, and diesel fuel account for the majority of hazmat carried by surface in the United States, as measured by ton- miles. The totals are 70% by highway, 24% by rail, and 84% by ocean. Quantities of flammable liquid cargo carried by air would, of course, be relatively small. 3.4.2 Prevalence of Hazmat Incidents Versus Emergency Responder Needs There is no one source of data comprehensively detailing hazmat incidents for all modes. There are many sources that tabulate hazmat incidents, but a consistent source that sum- marizes the number across all modes at a summary level is Table 2-20 of the 2008 State Transportation Statistics Report published by BTS (31). Table 12 lists total reported hazmat incidents for the United States by mode for 2007, condensed from that source. The total includes incidents for which the state is unreported and excludes incidents occurring in a U.S. territory or foreign country. There are other sources for one or more of these numbers but none for all. The Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) crash file reports all serious truck and bus crashes and contains fields for listing whether the vehicle was plac- arded, indicating the presence of hazmat. For an accident to be classed as serious, one or more of the following conditions must occur: one vehicle must be towed from the scene, there must be a fatality, or there must be an injury requiring treatment at a medical facility. It is believed that the BTS data are for all truck accidents, even minor ones, and therefore the totals for highway should be reduced to about 4,000 if only serious truck accidents are considered. (It should be noted that when considering the likelihood of encountering a placarded vehicle involved in an accident, the BTS number is more appropriate.) The number of spills shown in Table 13 was estimated using the Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System (HMIRS). The HMIRS data, which include all modes, are dominated by accidents in which a spill of hazmat occurred. Consequently, only a small percentage of all serious hazmat accidents are found in the database. HMIRS data are not Mode Top Hazmat (% of Ton-Miles) of Dangerous Goods Transported Highway Gasoline (36%) Flammable liquids (25%) Diesel fuel (9%) Elevated temperature material (8%) Compressed nitrogen (7%) Rail Gasoline (24%) Sulfuric acid (16%) Elevated temperature material (15%) Compressed hydrocarbon mix (11%) Sodium hydroxide solution (8%) Ocean (marine) Diesel fuel (48%) Flammable liquids (19%) Gasoline (17%) Sodium hydroxide solution (10%) Elevated temperature material (4%) Air Radioactive (43%) Resin solution (29%) Flammable liquid – corrosive (14%) Sodium hydroxide solution (14%) Table 11. Summary of shipments by hazardous material and mode. Mode Total Highway Rail Air Marine 16,889 748 1,523 61 19,221 (Not including pipelines or bulk, non-packaged marine incidents) Table 12. Number of reported hazmat incidents by mode: 2007.

49 available for after 2006; they are still being compiled but are now web-based, and only data on individual accidents can be obtained. The fatalities and injuries for highway are reported using MCMIS, and since all serious injuries and fatalities must be reported in the MCMIS crash file, these numbers are considered reasonably accurate. The data for the other modes are from HMIRS. HMIRS only reports injuries associated with exposure to the hazmat, so this is not a good source for obtaining an estimate of all injuries associated with hazmat incidents. In Table 13, column 4 lists the total number of en route spills reported annually to PHMSA. The 890 spill incidents associated with air transport were all en route and not asso- ciated with an airplane crash. The fifth column is divided into two numbers; the first number is the total number of fatalities reported, and the second is the number of fatalities attributed to exposure to the hazmat. Thus for highway, there were 66 total fatalities associated with trucks hauling hazmat, and 22 of those fatalities were attributed to exposure to the hazmat. Since the dominant form of hazmat being transported by highway is Class 3 flammable liquids, it is very likely that many of those 22 facilities were the result of a subsequent fire and people being unable to escape from their vehicles. The sixth column shows the number of individuals hospitalized because of exposure to the hazmat following a traffic or rail accident/derailment. The property damage for hazmat incidents was taken from the HMIRS for highway and air, and from Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports (RAIRs) for rail. Note that the damage estimates were only for those crashes in which a spill of hazmat occurred. If damage figures for all hazmat crashes were included, the costs would be much higher. The total in HMIRS for rail was $17 million; since the RAIR number of $20 million is the higher number, it is shown in Table 13. Overall the numbers shown in Table 13 are considered to be reasonable. They are certainly better than order-of-magnitude estimates, but there is believed to be a lot of underreporting throughout the entire field. Thus some of the values, par- ticularly the injuries and property damage, might be low. As recently as 2003, the Census Bureau produced hazmat commodity flow reports for each state, but that practice ceased by 2007. The ton-miles of noncombustible, nontoxic com- pressed gases are assumed to be higher than the national average in the farm states. U.S. DOT allows ammonia used for agricultural purposes to be placarded as Division 2.2, classifying it as a nontoxic, nonflammable gas. The data are not clear as to the fatalities, injuries, and property damage resulting from hazmat release, which would be a subset of the fatalities, injuries, and property damage resulting from crashes shown in Table 13. Those data would be important for cost–benefit analysis related to solutions for first responder needs. Even assuming underreporting, sub- jectively those figures appear small. To a great degree, the low frequency is undoubtedly due to safety and security initiatives undertaken by the hazmat industry and government, and some of the industry initiatives have been voluntary. However, the consequences of a major hazmat release can be severe and result in deaths, injuries, and substantial property damage. The general feeling among stakeholders is that an ESP system that is effective and affordable would be of interest. Mode Annual Ton- Miles (2007 Hazmat Commodity Flow Survey, Table 1a) millions Number of Incidents/Year (State Transportation Statistics, 2008 BTS Table 2-20) Number of Incidents Involving Spill (HMIRS 2005–2006) Fatalities Associated with Crashes (Highway: MCMIS 2005– 06; Rail and Air HMIRS 2005– 06) Injuries Associated with Crashes (Highway: MCMIS 2005– 06; Rail: RAIR 2005) Property Damage Associated with Crashes (Highway and Air: HMIRS 2005–06; Rail: RAIR 2005) Highway 103,997 16,889 3,951 66/22 14 $77M Rail 92,169 748 1,080 17/10 105 $20M Marine 37,064 61 N/E N/E N/E N/E Air S 1,523 890 0/0 N/E $0.3M Totals 233,230* 19,221 5,921** 83/32** 119*** $97.3M** N/E = No estimate; marine mode data is not reported to U.S. DOT but rather released to the USCG using U.S. EPA hazmat pollutant list; air mode data is not tabulated. S = Insufficient data to estimate. *When multimodal shipments (e.g., air and highway, rail and marine, marine and highway) not shown are added to the single mode shipments in column 2, the total ton-miles are 323,457. **Not including marine mode. ***Not including marine and air modes. Table 13. Summary of hazmat incidents by mode.

50 3.5 Discussion of ESP Implementation Challenges and Trade-Offs 3.5.1 Differing Needs and Perceptions There are four major stakeholder groups, whose differences and needs were characterized in Table 3 and their representative organizations described in Subsection 3.1.1. Each of the four primary stakeholder groups has a different set of needs and expectations for ESP information. A system that addresses all of these needs and expectations will have to be both highly versatile and affordable. One of the most difficult challenges regarding implementation of an ESP system that will benefit each of these stakeholder groups is solving the larger problem of e-commerce interoperability, including standards and guidance. Another is finding a way to bridge their differences. Research conducted in earlier tasks of HMCRP Project 05 engaged many organizations, both within and outside of the four primary stakeholder groups of shippers, carriers, regula- tory agencies, and emergency responders. (As mentioned in Subsection 2.3.1.2, the terms “compliance” and “enforcement” in this document are used with regard to regulatory compliance or law enforcement stakeholder organizations that may need to identify what hazmat is on a vehicle.) The findings of the project’s interim report documented organizations’ thoughts, concerns, observations, and hopes for ESP as an alternative to the paper-based system (32). Some members of the hazmat transportation community, including a number of interviewed stakeholder organizations, are already using some form of e-commerce for shipping transactions. The interim report noted their experience and success with the systems they use. While these e-commerce implementations have been delivering useful results, each approach has generally been developed or incorporated to serve a particular transportation mode or business case, and to a great extent they are not electronically compatible with one another. Further, there were differences of opinion on the type of implementation that stakeholders felt would be optimal for their respective organizations, as well as differ- ences among participants regarding the approach needed for a more inclusive ESP solution. Indeed, there is not unanimity among the stakeholders on the need for—or usefulness of— ESP, sometimes even within the same stakeholder group. An e-commerce system that is currently in use by an entity involved with a certain mode of hazmat transportation often cannot be easily translated to other transportation modes because the modes are generally using different approaches. Standards that could facilitate smoother and more complete exchange of data among these differing systems are not yet sufficient to support widespread interoperability among ESP systems. The HMR, IMDG code, and ICAO technical instructions allow the use of electronic transmission techniques. But there is still a de facto requirement for many shippers to generate hazmat shipping papers prior to accepting cargo. It should be noted that as long as hard copy shipping papers are effectively required for most hazmat shipments, they remain an acceptable form that reduces the incentive for going paperless. 3.5.2 Cargo Transfers and Multimodal and International Shipments A single hazmat shipment from its origin to destination may be handed off multiple times to different vehicles in the same mode, for example with a TL shipment crossing the United States. The hazmat shipment may be interlined, which may be to another vehicle in the same mode or in a different mode. Transfers may include breaking up the cargo, which presents its own set of challenges to an ESP system keeping track of the shipment. Rail tank cars are often transferred to other trains, including those of other railroads, and may take a quite circuitous route to the destination. Airplanes receive hazmat cargo that arrives and departs by truck. The marine mode receives hazmat cargo that may arrive and depart by truck and/or rail. This handover to other vehicles/other modes that may have different e-commerce systems creates an inter- facing challenge to an ESP system. Hazmat that crosses an international border may be required to have an advance e-manifest notification to CBP or CBSA. 3.5.3 Business Needs Versus Regulatory and Emergency Response Needs A widely compatible ESP system needs to be capable of providing solutions that do not just address U.S. DOT requirements for the elements of hazmat shipping papers. The ESP focus for hazmat transportation solutions lies in the benefits that can accrue from improved electronic commerce rather than just electronic compliance with U.S. DOT hazmat regulations and requirements in isolation. In other words, an ESP system that only facilitates exchange of information that is found on required hard copy hazmat shipping papers along with associated emergency response information is not a suf- ficient solution; the overarching electronic commerce advan- tages such as in-shipment visibility must be strengthened to have a compelling reason for ESP. There are differences in the information needed to support business operations versus the information needed to support regulatory or emergency response actions. A key distinction is that emergency responders need information only when an incident occurs, whereas business transactions take place for every shipment; thus shippers and carriers will be involved whenever there are ESP. The concerns of shippers and carriers

51 are generally efficiency, visibility, and accountability. Business operations need additional information such as information on nonhazardous materials, other parties in the supply chain, billing and financial data, and expected delivery time. Signifi- cant benefits from an ESP system also need to be available to stakeholders such as regulators and the emergency response community, in addition to logistics firms. The needs of regu- latory and emergency response personnel, while not identical, are fundamentally different from stakeholders, whose primary interest is business efficiencies. Regulatory and emergency response personnel also share some similarities insofar as both desire remote identification of hazmat cargo. Regula- tory personnel and emergency responders need information about hazmat on a situational basis. Emergency responders primarily need specific information on the materials present, types of containers, material quantities, and potential inter- actions with other materials in the shipment. In many cases the manufacturer of the material is a very useful source of information. Regulatory personnel are concerned with the types and quantities of hazmat and whether the hazmat is being carried safely and legally. Their need for this information is generally at a site where the paperwork and credentials can be verified in a controlled setting. Regulatory personnel are involved with safety and security of dangerous substances. Knowing via electronic means what substances in what quantities are being transported would certainly be an administrative advantage for them that would also have safety benefits. There are safety and security aspects of ESP information for all four stakeholder groups. However, the SOW notes that “shipping papers also contain specific hazard information, standardized so that emergency responders may identify appro- priate measures to be taken in the event of a hazmat incident.” Thus, emergency responders are a stakeholder group that has special needs and expectations of an ESP implementation beyond aspects of commerce or regulatory concerns. 3.5.4 Emergency Responder Communications Challenges The approach described in this road map recognizes the importance that the ESP system must give to emergency responders. The needs of an emergency responder team are clearly very high on those occasions when they are on the scene of a potentially catastrophic hazmat spill or incident of national significance with unclear circumstances. For these personnel, the ability to know quickly and accurately what substances and quantities they are dealing with is more than a logistics or administrative advantage—it may mean the difference between safety and life-threatening risk. When a hazmat accident occurs, emergency responders primarily need specific information on the type and quantities of materials present, types of containers, emergency contact information, and potential interactions of the hazmat with other materials it may have come in contact with. In many cases the manufacturer of the material is a very useful source of information for emergency responders. As mentioned in Subsection 1.2.4.2, U.S. DOT requires all hazmat shippers to provide constant monitoring of an emergency response telephone number while the hazmat is being transported. In the event of a hazmat accident or incident, to ensure that they are acting on correct information, it is important for the emergency responder and the carrier/transporter to call the number in the emergency response information document before taking any action. The following information drawn from the Emergency Response Guidebook outlines recommended actions for emer- gency responders who are first to arrive at the scene of a transportation incident involving hazmat (33): Identify the Hazards Placards, container labels, shipping documents, MSDSs, Rail Car and Road Trailer Identification Charts, and/or knowledge- able persons on the scene are valuable information sources. Evaluate all available information and consult the recommended guide to reduce immediate risks. Additional information, pro- vided by the shipper or obtained from another authoritative source, may change some of the emphasis or details found in the guide. The Guide provides only the most important and worst case scenario information for the initial response in relation to a family or class of dangerous goods. As more material-specific information becomes available, the response should be tailored to the situation. Assess the Situation. Consider the following: • Is there a fire, a spill or a leak? • What are the weather conditions? • What is the terrain like? • Who/what is at risk: people, property, or the environment? • What actions should be taken: Is an evacuation necessary? Is diking necessary? • What resources (human and equipment) are required and are readily available? • What can be done immediately? Obtain Critical Information. Following is the short list for critical information needed on the hazmat shipment: • Your name, call back telephone number, FAX number • Location and nature of problem (e.g., spill, fire) • Name and identification number of material(s) involved • Shipper/consignee/point of origin • Carrier name, rail car or truck number • Container type and size • Quantity of material transported/released • Local conditions (weather, terrain, proximity to schools, hospitals, waterways, etc.) • Injuries and exposures • Local emergency services that have been notified

52 The more clearly the hazard is identified, the more effective and efficient the initial response will be. The MSDS discusses the types and level of hazards presented by the material as well as personal protective measures for responders and procedures for confining, containing, and recovery of the material. Having the MSDS information available electronically would be a great benefit to emergency responders. In recent years, safety and security concerns have given rise to initiatives such as research investigating the feasibility of replacing hazmat placards on railcars with electronic systems (34) and developing a national truck tracking center proto- type (35). Vehicle and shipment tracking using GPS or a global locating system (GLS) has proliferated for tracking high-value motor carrier cargo over the past 10 years and is increasingly being used for hazmat railcar and barge tracking. Ideally, hazmat vehicles such as railcars and truck tank cars would have sensors to detect overturning and chemical release. The sensors would automatically report detailed information including GPS/GLS location and other accident details to the shipper and carrier as well as the nearest public safety answering point. It is possible that electronic manifest data could be accessed from hazmat vehicles belonging to carriers participating in the TSA truck and freight rail security pro- grams described in Subsections 3.3.5 and 3.3.6, respectively. This automated, event-driven reporting would be somewhat analogous to the reporting of a passenger car equipped with a General Motors OnStar or Ford SYNC in-vehicle commu- nications system. This is what has been envisioned by the U.S. DOT DMA program described in Subsection 3.2.2.2. The DMA system could also generate and archive data that would be useful in resource management and pre-staging planning. The desire to get accurate hazmat shipment information to emergency responders quickly in the event of an incident has been a vexing challenge for decades. If the hazmat vehicle operator is incapacitated and the vehicle cannot be approached to secure the hard copy shipping papers, in the best case, miti- gation is delayed; in the worst case, emergency responders’ or nearby citizens’ lives may be at risk because of the uncertainties of what has been or perhaps is about to be released, possibly including the ramifications of mixing hazmat. The placard may not be visible even with binoculars due to darkness, fire, smoke, fog, brush, vehicle structural damage, or position. When responding to a high-consequence event, emergency responders have a need for knowledge of hazmat contents that is more urgent from the safety and security viewpoint than any of the other stakeholder groups. Personal computers (i.e., laptops), personal digital assis- tants (PDAs), and cell phones are being used increasingly by emergency responder and law enforcement personnel; PCs are now in many of their official vehicles. Communications bandwidth has been made available to deal with increasing demands from emerging communications such as WiFi sys- tems (see Appendix D for a description of WiFi technology that can benefit stand-off detection of ESP by emergency response and regulatory compliance personnel). Standards are increas- ingly being advanced to facilitate ease and effectiveness of mobile communication. Nevertheless, recent government initiatives to reduce driver distraction need to be considered as part of any large deployment effort. The cost to a shipper or carrier of a major hazmat incident (whether accidental or intentional) can be considerable, and more rapid mitigation can help protect the carrier against loss. The swift availability of ESP information to emergency response personnel will support more rapid mitigation of serious hazmat incidents. The use of ESP allows railroads to provide infor- mation to emergency responders in multiple ways. Shipping papers can be faxed or e-mailed to emergency responders in an incident if the papers are not available through the train crew. They can also be sent to PDAs. This has improved the safety of dealing with hazmat incidents (36). 3.5.5 Beneficiary Pays Versus Sender Pays Any expense in the supply chain will ultimately be passed on to the consumer. However, for ESP to be more widely embraced, the entity that receives the greatest benefit from e-commerce transactions needs to be the entity that bears the expense. This is the concept of “beneficiary pays.” The freight forwarder, shipper, or carrier could pay for ESP. The shipper is already paying for cargo transport and does not want to pay more. Unless the beneficiary organization of an e-commerce transaction pays for the service, there is limited incentive for its use. That has been reported to be the case at least with air cargo, in which air freight forwarders (i.e., senders) cur- rently bear the brunt of the expense of e-commerce transfers, although they do not reap the primary benefit of the service (37). Unless costs of e-commerce are more equitably aligned with beneficiary organizations that realize the major share of the advantages, voluntary adoption of e-commerce—and thus ESP—transfers will not be likely to occur. 3.5.6 Tracking Versus Business Data Confidentiality In addition to the expense of any technology system, a key concern with ESP perceived by many is the challenge of protecting proprietary information such as customer names, locations, and the type and quantity of hazmat that is being transported. With greater availability of proprietary infor- mation in an ESP system, there is concern that a centralized tracking system (i.e., one not under the control of a carrier or its technology vendor) can be vulnerable to improper dissemination and use of information. Passwords could be

53 stolen and sold, and the proprietary information could be made available to competitors. Furthermore, if not well protected, ESP could make information more accessible to terrorists seeking to identify and steal or release certain cargo. There is a need for legislative support and tort reform to protect parties using ESP from system failures that arise from gov- ernment activities. There is also the perception of risk from the government collecting information about all cargo and tracking all shipments, which some may feel would be Big Brother-type intrusion. While safety and security concerns may lead the government to want more advance information about hazmat shipments, some stakeholders do not like the idea of government being able to track their shipments and otherwise have greater visibility into their operations. Alternatively, some stakeholders (e.g., those manufacturers and carriers participating in the TSA truck and freight rail security programs) feel that the security of their cargo is enhanced when government has more visibility over their hazmat cargo movements. There is a subtle distinction between in-transit visibility and tracking. Sophisticated parcel tracking that consumers commonly access online is point-to-point, in which presence of the shipment is updated each time it arrives at a reporting location such as a transfer point. That frequency is perfectly acceptable for business purposes. For certain bulk hazmat shipments such as PIH/TIH that may be in transit for long periods and in locations with dense populations where they may be susceptible to hostile actions, TSA has shown interest in greater in-transit visibility. Over the past decade, many motor carriers have incorpo- rated GPS- or GLS-based locating systems that use satellite or cellular communications or that may have the capability to use both. These locating systems can effectively track vehi- cles used to transport cargo. For motor carriers, the GPS/GLS equipment is more often hardwired to a truck’s electrical supply, although some carriers use trailer-mounted, battery- powered GPS/GLS units that may be supplemented with solar power. Aside from locomotives, railcars with these locating systems generally depend on batteries with power management engineering strategies. These locating systems were incorpo- rated initially because of the business efficiencies that they brought to the industry. Increasingly, GPS-/GLS-based locating systems are being tied to event-based reporting such as detec- tion of a chemical leak, unauthorized opening of a hatch or container, or departure from a geo-fenced boundary. GPS/GLS locating systems on trucks are sometimes accompanied by in-vehicle panic buttons, which provide helpful information in the event of a hazmat incident, but they still require informa- tion to be relayed by the shipper or carrier to law enforcement or other emergency responders. With this capability, GPS/GLS locating systems are increas- ingly being used for safety and security purposes, particularly with respect to high-value shipments such as electronics and dangerous shipments such as certain types of hazmat. And increasingly, GPS-/GLS-based locating systems are being used for rail and barge transportation of hazmat. A GPS/GLS device can be hardwired to a locomotive or tugboat, and on a tank car or barge a battery-powered version that is perhaps supplemented by solar power is needed. GPS/GLS service is provided by a vendor, which generally works closely with the carrier. Either the vendor (usually) or the carrier may own the tracking data, but it is not shared with others except by special permission from the vendor and carrier. In an analogous way, the marine Automatic Identifica- tion System (AIS) is an automated tracking system used on ships and by vessel traffic services (VTS) for identifying and locating vessels by electronically exchanging data with other nearby ships and VTS stations. AIS provides a means of track- ing hazmat cargo on oceangoing vessels from port to port. While AIS can be used to track shipments, that is not its pri- mary function. Airlines operate within a closed-loop, high-security context in which the tracking of shipments is handled differently from the ground transportation modes. The railroads’ Automatic Equipment Identification (AEI) system is an electronic recognition system in use in the North American railroad industry. The AEI system uses trackside radio frequency identification (RFID) readers to identify railcars (including hazmat tank cars) passing by on a train. Nearly all railcars in the United States now have AEI tran- sponders mounted on their sides, which identifies them. The resulting transponder identification data are manipulated by vendors and provided to railcar owners for management of their rolling stock assets. The AEI car location messaging (CLM) information can be used for determining that a rail shipment is somewhere between two RFID reader stations, although in some places the readers may be far apart. Under certain rare circumstances, the information on a railcar’s contents and general location may be helpful for emergency response actions, but the AEI data are not available on a real- time basis. However, ESP allows railroads to check the accuracy of their train consists when departing yards because cars are scanned by AEI. ESP have permitted increased accuracy in the final product by enabling automated comparison of the ESP entries to a standardized shipping description database that AAR maintains and that the railroads use in their billing/ shipping paper process (38). As mentioned in Subsections 3.3.5 and 3.3.6, TSA has been processing grants to encourage and facilitate use of GPS-/ GLS-based systems by rail carriers and motor carriers that haul certain quantities and types of hazmat. In fact, TSA has developed a national hazmat truck tracking center prototype (39) and has provided a universal communication interface for transmission of hazmat cargo manifest data.

54 3.5.7 Central Database Versus Distributed Processing Some stakeholders have reservations about the ability of an ESP system incorporating a central database to securely pro- tect business-sensitive information. While central databases are in use for e-commerce and are less costly than acquiring the capability for distributed processing, the vulnerability is seen as higher with a central database. Also, some entity must pay for the operation of a central database. Hosted cloud computing has the potential to bring new capabilities to ESP systems. 3.5.8 Capital, Operational, and Maintenance Cost Elements Often, the reasons given for lower interest in ESP have been the perceived extra cost and sophistication required to operate within an e-commerce system. Systems that provide effective e-commerce are already in use; however, the cost and complexity of making existing systems more widespread within the hazmat transport community are considered pro- hibitive to many of the stakeholders. For a widely compatible ESP system to be considered successful, one litmus test is that significant benefits need to be available to small users that operate on tight margins, such as LTL motor carriers with 20 or fewer trucks. These small users feel that they cannot afford the requisite expense of a highly capable e-commerce system. While the current paper-based shipping system they use has inefficiencies compared to a sophisticated ESP system, the paper-based system is familiar, approved, and works as intended for emergency response. Small operators feel that investing in a highly capable ESP system is beyond their financial capabilities. The expense is not just in hardware and software but also in training, opera- tions and maintenance, licensing, and upgrades. While the capabilities of sophisticated end-to-end tracking have been demonstrated, for example, in the EFM program, a high degree of en route visibility is not achieved inexpensively. A motor carrier with fewer than 20 trucks is far less able than a Class 1 railroad to afford the investment of a system that gives such visibility. For a voluntary move to ESP capability, the return on investment (ROI) would have to justify the outlay against the hard copy system. Capital and maintenance costs can be alleviated for busi- nesses that use hosted solutions. These are also referred to as “software as a service” (SaaS) or “cloud computing.” The significant up-front investment for firms is removed, although startup implementation costs are generally applied by the service provider. The user pays monthly usage fees, which can include a minimum number of transactions or messages for the period, with additional excess usage charges. Another benefit of this approach is that the cost of upgrad- ing or adding functionality can be minimal. Firms of all sizes and across almost all industries have adopted this solution. 3.5.9 Sophistication and Technology Adoption The level of computer and Internet-based communications skills required to support an ESP system with high en route visibility is greater than what is currently needed for hard copy transactions. The trucking industry has made an invest- ment to bring communications technology to the cab and keep the driver in close contact with the dispatcher. Truck- mounted satellite systems allow motor carriers to keep track of the truck’s location, send new orders, send messages to a large number of recipients, and train drivers through exer- cises (40). Nevertheless, there is a reluctance to have drivers make shipment data entry because of the additional training required and the potential for mistakes to be introduced by someone who enters data infrequently. There is also sensitivity to, and legislation focused on, any device that may distract the driver of a moving vehicle in an unsafe manner. 3.5.10 Voluntary Adoption Versus Regulation or Other Forcing Functions Stakeholder organizations have limited incentive to vol- untarily adopt ESP when hard copy shipping papers remain a valid alternative to ESP and are currently required to be carried inside hazmat-transporting vehicles. This situation would be reversed if government or industry took steps to compel adoption of ESP as an alternative to paper. There have been a number of instances of regulation or forcing functions in the United States. As an example of regulation, CBP’s ACE program requires that companies importing cargo into the United States by highway, their customs brokers, freight forwarders, or truck carriers must inform CBP about the details of their shipments in an electronic format prior to the arrival of the goods at border crossings. Motor carriers over the past several years have had to comply with the requirement for submission of an e-manifest to CBP. CBP announced their intent and helped prepare the way for the requirement for the e-manifest. The lesson is that customs organizations worldwide can help facilitate incorporation of e-commerce, including ESP, if they require it and help facilitate its adoption. In June 2003, a large multinational retailer (see Subsec- tion 2.1.1.3) announced its plan to implement RFID technol- ogy in its supply chain within a 20-month period. The retailer made clear how to comply with the technical requirements

55 for its RFID system, which were based on an international standard. It gave suppliers other guidance and timelines with which to comply, but their insistence on the RFID system was firm. The retailer’s commercial influence in the market was such that its suppliers had a big incentive to meet the stated requirement so as not to be left behind, and those who wanted to do business with the retailer took steps to meet the RFID requirement (41). While the result ultimately was not quite as planned, the process the retailer followed demonstrated the ability of a powerful private-sector entity to compel implementation of new technology in its industry and how to go about it. There is no single private entity in the hazmat transpor- tation world comparable to the aforementioned retailer in its ability to force adherence across the industry and among all modes. However, trade associations could work together to facilitate adoption of standards and plans to accelerate adoption of ESP. Among hazmat carriers, the North Ameri- can Class 1 railroads let customers know that they needed to make transactions electronically if they wished to have goods shipped by rail. They too published guidelines and other helpful information (42). Consequently, virtually every rail shipment transaction is now conducted through EDI-based e-commerce. Per the U.S. DOT requirement, trains must still carry paper copies of ESP and a few other examples of paper copies, such as for certain movements of hazardous waste. However, these are now the rare exception. The rail industry compelled its customers to work with them in attaining near- complete paperless status. The transportation industry recognizes the potential of wise regulation to level the playing field (i.e., bring about a needed improvement that keeps one company from inadver- tently having an unfair advantage over another and that affects all parties concerned more or less equally). The concern over an unlevel playing field arises when a particular segment of the transportation industry perceives that a regulation will result in a competitive disadvantage against other modes and can occur within the same mode (i.e., the relative ability of a small versus a large firm to meet the regulation). Industry is also understandably concerned when it perceives that regula- tion will result in an unfunded mandate in order to comply. It also needs to know that voluntary acceptance of ESP will not result in a disadvantage with respect to a competitor that does not accept ESP. 3.6 Electronic Commerce System Standards and Standards Bodies/Organizations In order to facilitate both existing and future methods of communication, it is necessary to emphasize the use of stan- dards to achieve interoperability and common exchanges as applicable. Standards are important at many layers in solutions that support electronic exchange of information. For example, consider the act of simply exchanging a document with a third party that is not on a corporate network. The document is copied from the source computer to a universal serial bus (USB) drive and then handed to the third party, which sub- sequently inserts the drive into its computer and then copies the file. The third party then opens and reviews the file data. In this example, standards are necessary on many levels. First, there is the document content and the language it is written in. If both parties do not use the same language, information exchange is difficult or even impossible. Second, both com- puters recognized the file type and were able to access the information in the file. Here again, the use of common stan- dards was essential for successful communication. Finally, the actual exchange took place using the USB drive. This required standards both physically, since both computers had to have the same connector, and electrically, so that the computer could send/receive the correct bytes of data. Without standards, this simple exchange could never have taken place. In order to facilitate interoperability among partners given many different methods of electronic communication, standards are essential. Even with standards, communication among part- ners still has its challenges. The discussion in this section primarily focuses on the standards that are used to convey the content and format of information exchanges. This is because the use of those standards—when compared to the standards for the actual delivery of the electronic data (i.e., e-mail, file transfer pro- tocol, web services)—is far less consistent and interoperable. And as described, while many different organizations have worked diligently to develop these standards, adoption varies across the industry, often depending on mode and even the specific country. The following subsections identify and briefly describe the purpose, benefits, and any limitations of standards develop- ment organizations, the current and emerging standards that are well-suited for e-commerce solutions such as ESP, and finally, some of the industry and government trade groups that support standards utilization. 3.6.1 Standards Bodies and Organizations This subsection lists several of the major organizations that have an impact on the standards used in today’s e-commerce environment. All of these organizations are international in their charter and have produced standards that have the potential, or have been shown to provide, improved infor- mation and e-commerce on a global basis. Unfortunately, however, many of these same standards from different orga- nizations serve similar purposes, and in some cases compete or conflict with each other.

56 3.6.1.1 United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT) UN/CEFACT is primarily responsible for the development of the Core Component Library (CCL), which is the building block for many of today’s XML-based standards, including electronic business XML (ebXML), universal business language (UBL), and the Trade Data Elements Directory (TDED), one of the leading resources for defining and standardizing data elements used in e-commerce. UN/CEFACT is also the shep- herd for the UN/EDIFACT standard, which along with the Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) X12 version of EDI, constitutes the most widely used standard for electronic data exchange. 3.6.1.2 World Customs Organization The WCO is noted for its work in areas covering the development of global standards, the simplification and harmonization of customs procedures, trade supply chain security, the facilitation of international trade, the enhancement of customs enforcement and compliance activities, anti- counterfeiting and piracy initiatives, public–private partner- ships, integrity promotion, and sustainable global customs capacity building programs. The WCO also maintains the international harmonized system goods nomenclature (43) and administers the technical aspects of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements on Customs Valuation and Rules of Origin (44). Many customs agencies, including CBP, operate IT systems that require specific ESP to be submitted to them in order to authorize the entry of goods into a country. 3.6.1.3 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO is the world’s largest developer of standards, having published over 18,000, and is responsible for many of the standardized practices in place today in numerous industries, including the supply chain. 3.6.1.4 Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) OASIS has its roots in the original standard generalized markup language (SGML) standards community and con- tinues to this day to focus on many of the document markup language-centric standards (e.g., XML), as well as posi- tioning itself, along with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C; see next subsection), as a major contributor to the web service’s body of standards. Web services are one of the emerg- ing technologies that facilitate secure business-to-business (B2B) electronic data exchange. OASIS is also responsible for the UBL standard, which is described in greater detail in Subsection 3.6.2.3. 3.6.1.5 World Wide Web Consortium The World Wide Web Consortium, as its name implies, has primarily been responsible for the standards that support the overall Internet as it exists today. This includes the familiar hypertext transfer protocol (http) common to nearly all web sites today but also includes many of the B2B-related stan- dards such as web services and security necessary to facilitate e-commerce. The W3C, along with OASIS, truly controls the standards for the Internet. 3.6.1.6 Digital Trade and Transportation Network (DTTN) DTTN is not technically a standards organization but is instead an open platform for e-commerce. DTTN was original sponsored by the government of Hong Kong but is now privately operated through Tradelink Electronic Commerce Limited. DTTN consists of three layers: a series of core standards doc- uments and protocols; an open, secure, and reliable messag- ing infrastructure; and support for third-party value-added services. It is the standards documents they have produced that warrant their inclusion in this standards organization discussion. DTTN supports multiple formats, including EDI (both ANSI X.12 and UN/EDIFACT), Cargo Interchange Message Procedure (CARGO-IMP), XML, and even simple comma-separated values (CSV) file format. DTTN also sup- ports the standard protocols for SMTP, HTTP, file transfer protocol (FTP), as well as the applicability statements (AS) AS-1 and AS-2, common in the e-commerce community. 3.6.2 Electronic Commerce Standards Following are several of the current and emerging standards that may be used for e-commerce. 3.6.2.1 EDIFACT/ASC X12 The EDIFACT standard, which is maintained by the UN/CEFACT committee, and ASC X12, which is governed by ANSI, constitute the international and North American versions of EDI information standards, respectively. Together they facilitate the majority of e-commerce data presently exchanged in the logistics community, particularly in the rail and ocean carrier segments. Both versions of EDI standardize the data elements, element grouping, layout, and coding for electronic documents and consist of a large library of stan- dards documents or forms. These documents include both

57 mandatory and optional elements and components, and they often align with their paper counterparts. EDI facilitates a fairly compact and efficient approach to encoding information in the message, using both row descrip- tors and a fixed position scheme. However, to facilitate this encoding, separate documentation is necessary to describe a specific trading partner’s implementation of the EDI message. While this has long been the accepted practice and there are many tools to simplify the use of EDI in a company’s e-commerce solution, the reality is that a large percentage of implementations are custom, and as such, the investment in developing interfaces to use EDI is relatively high compared to other options. However, the fact remains that it is the most dominant data exchange format in use today, and industry is comfortable with its continued use, which favors its long-term outlook. So while some may argue against a solution using EDI, this dominance and familiarity to the industry help secure it as one of the viable options in future ESP discussions. 3.6.2.2 Cargo Interchange Message Procedure Jointly developed by IATA, its member airlines, and Airlines for America (A4A; formerly the Air Transport Association), Cargo-IMP is the official message source for specifications concerning space allocation, air waybills, flight manifests, accounting, status, discrepancy, embargo, customs, cargo accounts settlement systems (CASS) billing, dangerous goods, allotments, and surface transportation. Cargo-IMP also includes encoding and decoding lists of all approved codes and abbreviations (45). 3.6.2.3 Universal Business Language UBL is a family of standard, international, open, royalty-free electronic XML business documents (currently there are 31), the purpose of which is to facilitate the exchange of infor- mation among supply chain trading partners. UBL has been developed under an OASIS technical committee. UBL builds on the work done by UN/CEFACT and OASIS in developing the ebXML Core Component Technical Specification (CCTS) 2.01, also known as ISO 15000-5. UBL has been or is being adopted by several countries and multi- country consortia, including Denmark, Sweden, the North European cooperation (which includes Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom), the Pan- European Standards Organization for e-Business (CEN/ISS), and most recently, the European Union-sponsored Freightwise initiative. U.S. DOT has conducted and continues to conduct pilot tests and case studies based on UBL deployment as part of the EFM program. The structure and library of data elements in UBL readily support the dissemination of hazmat ESP information and include this structure in many of the core documents, including BOLs, forwarding instructions, and waybills. Implementing UBL as a standard message format for the intake of informa- tion would not only facilitate the use of this global standard by a growing number of entities but would also encourage further adoption with associated benefits for the remainder of the supply chain community. 3.6.2.4 IEEE 1512 Family of Standards The IEEE 1512 family of standards documents a series of Incident Management Message Sets and their underlying data elements as used by emergency management centers (EMCs), which can be the basis for communication of the hazmat information to emergency responders. Similar to UBL on the intake side, solutions based on IEEE 1512 con- tinue to be implemented in major metropolitan areas such as New York, Houston, and Washington, D.C. IEEE 1512 was the underlying standard used in TSA’s hazmat truck security pilot project that was developed for a national hazmat truck tracking center prototype. Use of IEEE 1512 facilitated the exchange of critical information to emergency responders using a message format that was built for that community. 3.6.3 International Conventions and Associations In addition to the standards organizations identified in Subsection 3.6.1, there are many organizations, industry associations, and international conventions that exist (among other reasons) to promote the use of standard practices and procedures, and in some cases dictate the use of standards. A handful of those that were researched as part of this project are identified in the following. The European Commission proposes to modernize the European Union customs code. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations provides a single window agreement for faster clearance of goods. The Global Air Cargo Advisory Group (GACAG) (46) is composed of representatives from: • The International Air Cargo Association (TIACA), • IATA, • International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations (Fédération Internationale des Associations de Transitaires, or FIATA), and • Global Shippers Forum (GSF). GACAG has formed recently and is an industry advisory group for the air cargo industry. Its purpose is to ensure that the air cargo industry has a unified voice in its dealings with worldwide regulatory authorities and other bodies whose

58 decisions directly affect air cargo. GACAG has invited the WCO to help promote global harmonization of electronic transactions (47). 3.7 Data Creation/Intake Methods Project research has shown that the shippers and carriers involved in the handling and movement of hazmat span the continuums of size, capabilities, and technology familiarity. There are many differences in the way goods are handled and documented when comparing one mode versus another in highway, rail, marine, or air transportation; TL versus LTL shipments; government (e.g., Department of Energy or Department of Defense) versus commercial operations; and other considerations. Following is a discussion of the three main types of data intake options that could be elec- tronically exchanged. 3.7.1 Scanned Electronic Versions of Copies The first alternative method uses the original, most common, and readily available version of shipping papers: existing hard copies. As required, these hard copies are produced and carried with the shipment. They are available to an emergency responder or regulatory compliance/enforcement official, assuming access to the cab or operator/pilot compartment is available. To improve the availability of these hard copy shipping papers, an option may be for carriers, shippers, and other trading partners to take a current common step of faxing or scanning and e-mailing these scanned copies. This option may involve extending this process by making these electronic versions of copies available either as part of the shipment’s current documentation package (via CD-ROM or other electronic media) or by submitting these to a com- mon service that facilitates transport of hazmat. A number of companies currently provide this service. 3.7.2 Web Portal A second method uses a web portal, which is basically a secure website tailored for a specific purpose/entity and, in most cases, maintained by a third party on behalf of the user. The web portal is a viable solution for shippers and carriers that are looking to evolve from a paper-based system but do not have the resources or need to implement in-house systems to produce BOLs and the corresponding hazmat shipping papers. By implementing a portal solution complete with an online hazmat BOL capability, small and medium enterprises would have freely available systems in which they could generate and print BOLs directly from any Internet-enabled computer. E-BOL versions could be transmitted to trading partners that require or could accept them. At the same time the shipper or carrier benefits from this free service, the critical hazmat information would be retrievable. In principle, this method could even be used beneficially by a shipper or carrier that is not an adopter of an ESP system. 3.7.3 Electronic Submission The third alternative method is that of a fully integrated electronic submission process that can leverage both existing and emerging information exchange technologies. While not all-encompassing, the use of EDI and/or a value-added net- work (VAN) make up a majority of the electronic information exchanges that presently take place between trading partners. And while not a perfect system, these present exchange mech- anisms provide the foundation for building future systems, leveraging the legacy systems presently in use, and exchanging data between them. In the near future, this approach will also support emerging technologies and formats, such as the use of web services and XML, as these begin to penetrate and gain market share. The intent of fully integrated solutions and the corresponding data intake is to allow the partner to leverage the existing information exchanges already in place without the participants having to change their current busi- ness practices. At the same time, it encourages the adoption of emerging trends and standards by both existing and new e-commerce participants. This data intake option is the desired long-term solution. 3.8 Existing Electronic Interchange Systems As part of the research conducted to understand the current best practices in place for ESPs, many existing commercial, trade association-based, and government-sponsored solutions were identified. These solutions were divided into a handful of categories. Both the descriptions of existing systems and the representative examples follow. For the sake of objectivity, none of the commercial solutions are cited, but their func- tionality is described in general terms. 3.8.1 Description of Existing Systems The majority of existing systems fall into one of the fol- lowing major approaches currently in use for the exchange of e-commerce information: • Direct partner-to-partner exchanges, • Partner-to-partner via a VAN, • Hosted system, and • Variations.

59 3.8.1.1 Direct Partner-to-Partner Exchanges In this approach, trading partners agree on the format and method of information exchange and implement the exchange directly between the partner’s respective systems. The format and method of the information exchanged can take any form agreed to between the partners, including the use of XML-based messages and web services (as demonstrated in U.S. DOT’s EFM program). In general, this approach typically includes an EDI document or a flat file, such as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and the use of either FTP or e-mail to transmit the electronic document. 3.8.1.2 Value-Added Network In a VAN approach, trading partners use a third-party forwarding or translation service to facilitate the exchange of information between parties, such that each party can main- tain its existing document formats. The VAN serves to take in a document or file from one trading partner, in that partner’s preferred electronic format, translate the data as necessary into a format that the receiving partner can read, and forward the document to the receiving party or parties. 3.8.1.3 Hosted System A hosted system serves to consolidate all data intake under a single, often centralized system that allows for trading partners with little IT infrastructure to participate in e-commerce-type activities. A trading partner will typically log on to a service provider website and generate shipping documents, check status of shipments, and perform other functions. A variation of this approach is one where the trading partner may submit electronic documents to the hosted system, where they are used and kept by the system. 3.8.1.4 Variations The research also showed that many partners implement systems that are a combination of the previous approaches. For instance, a large retailer may conduct direct B2B exchanges with their top Tier 1 suppliers but use a VAN to communicate with Tier 2 suppliers. 3.8.1.5 Examples of Existing Systems The following are examples of noncommercial electronic data interchange systems, solutions, or practices: • EFM, • IATA e-freight, • TradeNet, • CBP’s ACE e-manifest, • CBSA’s ACI e-manifest, and • DTTN. 3.9 Current Electronic Commerce Methods Meeting Hazmat Transport User Needs, and Their Challenges In addition to the e-commerce standards and practices cited previously, electronic document templates currently exist that support the transmittal of hazmat information. However, as noted in the following, there remain some challenges that must be addressed in order to fully support ESP exchange. The transmittal of declarations for dangerous goods is currently supported by standards such as the UN/EDIFACT International Forwarding and Transport Dangerous Goods Notification (IFTDGN) and Rail Carrier Shipment Infor- mation Transaction Set (404) messages, both EDI message structures. The IATA e-freight initiative has also developed a standard for the declaration for dangerous goods. These standards support the transmittal of critical hazmat/dangerous goods information in the course of commercial transaction communications. Presently, however, most hazmat/dangerous goods infor- mation is conveyed in free-form fields of other shipping documents, and the ability to check the integrity of that information—either before it leaves the originating system or before it is accepted by the receiving system—is lost. As a result, incorrect information is caught when it is later checked on the receiving end, or worse, is not caught until it is critically needed. This creates rework for both the send- ing and receiving parties, and its resolution needs to have high priority. Not all of the systems referenced in Subsection 3.8.1 have specific modules, transaction sets, or forms to handle hazmat/ dangerous goods information and to create compliant docu- ments. The functionality of specific systems is driven by the needs of their users, which for some can represent only a secondary concern or need. Adoption of ESP standards and forms could lead to more of these systems developing func- tionality to support. The communications methods described can also support declarations for dangerous goods and sharing of hazmat/ dangerous goods information between parties. Web portals and e-documents, or electronic copies, are potentially lower- cost solutions to e-commerce information sharing. If set up and used properly, all of these methods ensure that necessary and critical information is conveyed.

60 3.10 Solution Alternatives 3.10.1 Solution Evaluation Framework Description The solution evaluation framework addresses the attri- butes of an ESP environment in the context of the needs of the hazmat stakeholders. Select systems are referenced to provide an illustration of the current state, and references do not promote any particular solution. The framework addresses safety, emergency management, and operational aspects for single mode, multimodal, domestic, and international shipments. Stakeholders are defined as shippers, carriers, regulators, and emergency response entities and personnel. The framework is structured to address technology and pro- cess elements in the three realms of inputs, data aggregation/ sharing, and outputs. Technology elements address data creation and input to the system, standardization, exchange and integration, access, and document creation. Hosted and SaaS applications are accessed by users for data input. Data elements can then be exchanged with carriers, consignees, and other intermediaries (such as customs brokers). Systems also allow for integration with order management applications to eliminate rekeying. Data may be standardized following EDI, e-mail file exten- sion, UBL, or other standards, which improves the sharing of those data across multiple users. Data may be used to generate paper copies of shipping documents and/or may be exchanged with other parties electronically. Electronic exchange allows downstream partners to sometimes access the shipment information in advance, use it for operational planning or activities such as export clearance, and eliminate rekeying of the information for their own purposes. Document generation is considered very basic functionality; however, it does not have the benefit of creating any downstream process efficiency, nor does it ensure downstream data accuracy. Process elements address how the technology affects the business processes. Data interchange results in the elimina- tion of redundant data entry and reduction in data errors. Administrative cost is reduced not just because of the obvious reduction in data entry, but also the reduction in time identi- fying and correcting downstream problems that result from mis-keying. Solutions that offer transportation management capabilities across multiple modes, including the package environment, allow firms to implement, maintain, and train employees to use a single solution rather than multiple solu- tions. Electronic signatures and e-certificates replace hand signatures in many transactional environments. Electronic data interchange allows information to move faster than prod- ucts, thus enabling downstream users to plan and synchronize activities (such as receipt and put-away or cross-dock). Elec- tronic availability of data has benefits as well for emergency responders and regulatory agencies (such as CBP). 3.10.2 Attributes of Representative Current State System(s) In Table 14, three commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) appli- cations along with IATA e-freight are evaluated against the needs of hazmat ESP users. It should be noted that IATA e-freight is not a solution, rather it is a set of standards for electronic data sharing among air transport parties. Therefore, many of the attributes cannot be claimed by IATA e-freight since they would be dependent on the solution, not the stan- dard. The three COTS solutions are all hosted. They vary significantly by company revenues, technical architecture, and target user communities. They all provide supply chain and transportation management capabilities. All solutions support input of data either through their por- tal or through data interchanges with host operating systems. Similarly, outputs can either be in the form of data inter change, access through the portal, e-mails, or text alerts. Mobile device applications are still emerging; these are defined as moving beyond simple web browsing. The process attributes of these solutions are a significant improvement in operating efficiency and data accuracy because of eliminating rekeying, employing digital signatures, provid- ing data in advance of the physical shipment, and supporting regulatory compliance requirements. Document scanning (Subsection 3.7.1) can be employed to upload BOLs from the driver. Stored e-documents residing in a carrier’s system can also be retrieved and locally printed to produce hard copies. Support for emergency response personnel was not resident in the functionality of any of the COTS solutions evaluated but is well within the capability and architecture of each. Table 14 examines technology and process attributes within the categories of (1) sources of data, (2) aggregation/sharing of data, and (3) uses of data. The designations regarding func- tionality are subjective; “key functionality” reflects a source’s perception that a feature is a core element in differentiating or developing the solution. The results show that the three COTS applications are fairly comparable in capabilities. 3.11 Attributes of Desired State System The desired hazmat ESP system will result from three main challenges having been resolved for ESP in general: • An agreed-upon standard will be available that allows users in all transportation modes to interface with the ESP supply chain. Through the standard, the desired system will allow customers to use their data formats to successfully interface with other members in the supply chain to transmit a hazmat ESP. The standard will allow ESP from one mode to be handed over with permissions to an entity in another mode as well as in the same mode.

Table 14. Comparison of current state system functionality. = Key functionality, = Functionality, = No functionality, n/a = not specifically addressed in the standard, but could be supported Sources of Data COTS Solution E COTS Solution S COTS Solution F IATA E-freight Technology attributes Data integration with originator’s host system (ERP) n/a Data messaging standards applied Hazmat/DG classification standards applied Web GUI interface for record creation (portal) n/a Hosted application (Cloud) n/a HM/DG application or module n/a Security encryption of documents, records E-documents (scanning) capability n/a Process attributes Shipper-generated records n/a Retail (parcel shipping) environment n/a Multimodal shipping environment Digital signature capture Aggregation/Sharing of Data Technology attributes Multimodal standards for data sharing seitrapneewtebegnahcxeatadcinortcelE Electronic data exchange between interline carriers Integration with carrier planning and operations systems (create DG manifests) n/a Relative ease and cost of implementation (hosted service/SaaS) n/a Process attributes Elimination of rekeying by interline carrier n/a Data presented to interline carrier in advance of shipment tender n/a Electronic signature acceptance (continued on next page)

Uses of Data Technology attributes Standardized electronic data format for emergency management Standardized electronic data format for regulatory compliance Web-enabled access n/a Mobile device-specific apps n/a E-mail messages, text message alerts n/a Process attributes Generates hard copy maintained by operator/driver n/a Electronic data available to emergency management personnel n/a Supports customs (export/import) clearance Supports other business transactions DG = Dangerous goods, GUI = Graphical user interface, ERP = Enterprise resource planning Table 14. (Continued).

63 • Governance will have been established that plans, prepares, facilitates, incentivizes, de-conflicts, and controls the process for all modes. • Shippers will submit ESP documents in true electronic form that can be provided to freight forwarders and others in the supply chain. The desired system will have at least a level of functionality in each of the 29 technology and process attributes shown in Table 14. Since a widespread IT infrastructure does not exist, the desired system will be technology-neutral. The desired system will not require software to be installed on a company’s or organization’s computer. It will accommodate a user’s commercial encryption techniques. Since traceability carries a business sensitivity context, it will be possible to provide different levels of detail on an ESP through the associated shipment’s supply chain life cycle to dif- ferent parties with appropriate permissions. Through technol- ogy advances such as encryption and other techniques, it will be possible to control this visibility in a way that can make clear to certain parties (such as a roadside inspector or auditor) the path of the hazmat along the supply chain, while masking the com- plete information from others who do not have a need to know. The desired system recognizes and helps overcome the rela- tive difficulties of any such system to being incorporated by organizations that operate with limited resources and tech- nology sophistication, such as small motor carriers. It helps facilitate access to ESP by emergency responders (including emergency responder organizations that operate with limited resources, such as rural volunteer fire departments) during emergencies through permissions. 3.12 Gap Analysis Between Current and Desired State The attributes in which the illustrative current e-commerce systems in Table 14 fall shortest of the desired system (based on attributes in which at least one of the three illustrative commercial systems has no functionality) are: • Sources of data – Hazmat/dangerous goods classification standards applied – Hazmat/dangerous goods application or module – Digital signature capture • Aggregation/sharing of data – Electronic signature acceptance • Uses of data – Standardized electronic data format for emergency management – Mobile device-specific apps – E-mail messages, text message alerts – Electronic data available to emergency management personnel In addition to the data elements, standardization and guidance to support desired-state ESP do not currently exist. Protocols to provide permission for authorized ESP access- ing by certain parties such as emergency responders or road- side inspectors has not been established. Systems are not technology-neutral. In general, no provisions are made for electronic access by roadside inspectors or emergency responders. Proof-of-concept and more complete testing such as field testing has not been conducted.