A-2. Event-Driven Tools

Electronic Cargo Seals

Electronic cargo seals are a subset of sensor technology receiving serious attention from DOT, Customs, and others, and they receive disproportionate attention in this appendix. Pre-September 11, many developers and potential users of electronic seals put priority on low cost and simple devices aimed at theft prevention. After September 11, attention shifted to more robust seals with greater security capabilities. Used well, these tools may help reduce congestion at border inspection areas at the same time they increase confidence about security.

Electronic seals must be part of a layered approach to security since they are not sufficient on their own. It is essential to precede the sealing process with business practices and tools that assure the integrity of the container loading and sealing process. In addition, it is helpful—especially for efficiency and productivity—if electronic seals are part of a harmonized and standard international process. From a productivity perspective, electronic seals should be viewed as part of a management visibility and control system, not simply as a security tool.

Traditional Use Of Manual Seals

Manual cargo seals are part of good security practice. There are two major categories, indicative and barrier seals, both of which detect tampering or entry. [3]

Indicative seals are usually made of plastic, wire, or a combination of both, marked with a unique serial number or identifier. The purpose is simply to reflect whether or not the sealed entrance has been compromised. If the seal is intact, one presumes the cargo has not been tampered with. If the seal is compromised, one presumes the integrity of the cargo has been compromised as well.

Barrier seals add physical protection to tamper detection and are more difficult to defeat. It usually takes bolt cutters or special tools to remove a barrier seal, not simple wire cutters or a sharp knife. Barrier seals take many forms, with the simplest made of steel cable rather than wire. The most protective barrier seals are bolt seals, which can be similar to heavy-duty bolts with specialized single-use locking nuts and unique identifiers.

Seals can establish a rough audit trail of responsibility for any breach that does occur. Good practice includes inspecting the seal every time custody of the sealed item changes—when the next person in the chain of custody takes responsibility for the cargo, they should inspect the integrity of the seal before signing or initialing any release. Any discrepancy in the seal should be noted on documentation transferred with the change of custody.

However, manual seals offer no precise information as to where, when, under what circumstances, or by whom the seal was broken. The best information, assuming the chain of custody and seal inspections has been maintained, is a time frame when and range of possible locations where the breach may have occurred – that is, since the last signature noting that the seal was intact. Electronic seals can provide much richer information.

Types Of Electronic Seals

Electronic seals tend to combine physical seals and RFID components. Most of the electronics include passive or active RFID technologies.

Passive seals are short range, low cost, and disposable. They have no inherent electric power, such as a battery. The RFID reader or interrogator provides energy when it illuminates or scans the seal. The passive seal uses the absorbed energy to reflect its information back to the reader. The lack of on-board power limits the functionality. For example, since passive seals cannot provide continuous power to measure the condition of the seal cable, they cannot detect and record tampering at the time of the event—they simply report whether they are intact or not when interrogated by a reader.

Active seals are more sophisticated, have higher initial costs, and—until prices drop significantly—demand reuse. Active seals carry batteries and the power permits longer range and greater functionality. To extend the previous example, they can detect tampering when it occurs and add it to a time log of events. If equipped or interfaced with GPS, an active seal can also log the location. Further, some seals can provide live “mayday” tampering reports as the events happen, mostly within specially equipped terminals.

Because of their low unit cost and operational simplicity, passive seals were generally the preferred solution for “pre-September 11” security requirements aimed against theft. The greater functionality of active seals enhances their appeal for “post-September 11” security against terrorist tampering.

Progress is being made, but several hurdles stand in the way of wide use of electronic seals:

• International standards. The International Standards Organization’s (ISO) Technical Committee 104 appears to be near a decision on a multi-protocol standard that provides for passive and active seals.
• Global frequencies. Although several initiatives pursue it, today there are no global frequencies and technical specifications (for power levels and duty cycles) for electronic seals or other RFID logistics applications. Since there appear to be valid requirements for both active and passive technologies, and since active and passive tags cannot operate at the same frequency at the same place and time, global use demands a coordinated set of frequencies—more than one.
• Operating practices. Reusable seals pose an operational challenge for shippers and carriers. However, if that challenge is mastered, then reusable seals also offer an opportunity to lower the per-use cost of high security seals. Two points may mitigate the operational challenges. First, it appears that a significant portion of commercial containers operate in repetitive service that is more suited to recycling seals. [4] Second, if empty container movements were sealed for security reasons, that should simplify the recycling process.
• Field experience. Electronic seals are relatively new to the market and in limited use. It makes sense to conduct a vigorous pilot and demonstration program to accelerate the processes of accumulating field experience, fine-tuning products, and developing customer confidence—all important to support regulatory requirements for electronic seals.

Examples Of Electronic Seals

Transcore Passive Seal Technology

Transcore, a significant firm in the RFID field, developed passive seal technology. They designed the technology after informal focus groups with potential users who favored simple, disposable and inexpensive tags—as one would expect for market research completed before September 2001. [5]

Transcore is not a seal manufacturer and they license their technology to others. Two leading seal firms that are building passive products around TransCore’s technology are the Danish market leader OneSeal and joint venture TydenTek. [6]

Since other RFID firms also license technology to multiple firms, this is an opportunity to point out that using identical electronics in two seals does not guarantee identical performance. For example, the final design and installation of the antenna in the seal shell may make a meaningful difference in range and feasible deviation in orientation between reader and tag.

Both TydenTek and OneSeal’s passive products draw power from high-gain antennas when they are in range of a reader. Although nominal range is ten feet, that may require optimal conditions, which are not always present in the field. The seals appear to be usable around metal, an important factor. TydenTek offers the option of dual-use readers, able to read both the seal and a rail/container AEI RFID tag.

Pricing information for all electronic seals and tags can be confusing. Conversations and promotional materials may not specify the difference between design cost and actual pricing, between early production and later versions with tighter chip integration, or between difference purchase lot volumes. TydenTek officials mentioned prices between $7.50 and $1.50 for their passive barrier seal. OneSeal is targeting $1.75.

TydenTek Active Data Seal

TydenTek/Hi-G Tek’s active seal commands the high end of the market today. It is a cable seal with limited barrier protection but with high protection against counterfeits, swaps with similar seals, and electronic hacks. Among its tools are the generation of random code numbers for seal events combined with the fixed tag ID; data storage is 2 KB. The range is variable up to 100 feet. The battery is multi-year, sufficient for 1000 sealing cycles. This is a single frequency tag, making it most applicable within a major trading area.

The cost per seal is $250 according to a senior executive in the firm. This implies the product is aimed at high-value, high-security, closed loop applications. Examples include the Department of Energy and some electronics shippers. TydenTek correctly points out that the fully reusable product can amortize the cost over time. If the tag is used 1000 times as the battery rating indicates, then the cost per use falls below disposable passive tags. Of course, any amortization must be adjusted for expected shrinkage, loss, and damage to seals.

eLogicity eSeal

The eSeal is produced by the collaboration of a Singaporean electronics firm and E.J. Brooks, a major seal manufacturer. The disposable bolt-type seal offers medium protection against counterfeits and swaps, less against hacks since it records only the tag ID. Data capacity is 128 bytes. The battery has about a thirty-day life, which means it could expire before the end of a transpacific voyage that experienced any delays. The tag is a continuous beacon—constantly transmitting. Observers at other firms commented that this feature and the lack of anti-collision capability imply that multiple tags cannot operate in the same reader’s range at the same time. eLogicitiy offers two frequencies, 315 MHz and 433 MHz, although any tag operates on a single frequency, which may make it most applicable within a major trading area.

The eSeal is being demonstrated as part of the DOT-sponsored pilot of in-bond shipments between Seattle-Tacoma and the Blaine border crossing into Canada. The firm estimates pricing at $17 - $25 per unit in small numbers, falling to near $10 in volume.

Savi EchoPoint SmartSeal

SmartSeal electronics are being married with both bolt and cable barrier seals and the electronics are available to license by others. The seal combines random codes with a unique tag ID giving high protection against counterfeits, swaps, and hacks. Data storage is variable, 32 to 128 KB. The battery is rated for five years. Range is tunable up to 300 feet. The tags have multi-frequency options, making them more amenable to use across major trading areas. They are also compatible with DoD’s 433 MHz RFID reader infrastructure, including those in commercial sea- and airports.

An added capability is immediate seal location and status reporting in terminals equipped with a configuration of readers and beacons—known in the industry as Real Time Locations Systems (RTLS). Savi reports SmartSeal can be tuned to slot-level accuracy.

Pricing of the seals is about $50 in small numbers; large production runs may reduce the price by over two-thirds. The bolt seals would require a new bolt for each application, but the cable seal should be fully reusable. SmartSeal was announced in November 2001 and initial sales are reported to Futaba, a Taiwanese electronics firm.

Crown Agents Electronic Seal

Crown Agents is a trade facilitation firm that is collaborating with Universeal, U.K. Their Eseal is a cable barrier seal that uses a fiber optic strand in the cable and infrared communications, not RF, which frees it from global frequency concerns. Range, however, appears to be short and depends on handheld readers. The battery has a shelf life up to three years and it pulses the cable every second for tampering when locked. Data capacity is 8 KB, sufficient to include customs declaration and manifest information as well as security data.

The current price appears to be $150 for hand-built units and should drop to $35-50 in production. Early users are DOE and the Mexican government for in-bond container shipments between Los Angeles/Long Beach, southwest U.S. border crossings, and destinations in Mexico.

Security Sensors

Shippers, carriers, and firms that support them have a history of using sensors to monitor the condition of cargoes, to support safe and efficient operations, and to enhance security, usually against theft.

The best example for monitoring cargo condition is the temperature of refrigerated products. Some devices are self-contained recorders that move with the shipment and collect an audit trail of shipment temperatures for quality assurance and assigning liability. Other devices detect temperature threshold violations and trigger immediate message reports calling for field inspection or automatic restarting of the cooling or heating unit. Hazmat shippers use analogous devices to monitor tank pressure and vapor leakage. Automotive railcars are often equipped with impact-measuring devices including accelerometers, GPS receivers, and recording devices to build an audit trail of rail terminal humping impacts. The data report impacts above contract thresholds for quality control and assigning liability.

Sensors tuned to operating efficiency and safety are common among motor carriers and railroads. PACCAR, for example, displayed a “truck of the future” at an Intermodal Expo that had 57 feeds to collect operating parameter data. While such data may be recorded on board for collection in a terminal, the growing trend is for live delivery of the data to dispatch centers via wide area communications—as discussed below.

Until September 2001, most interest in security sensors focused on thwarting theft and contraband such as drugs and human smuggling. Intrusion detection devices included mechanical, light-sensitive, infrared motion detectors, and the development of electronic seals. Breakwire grids can detect forcible entry through ceilings and sidewalls as well as doors. Early offerors of trailer tracking devices included door open/door closed sensors. Surround vehicle video systems permit drivers to survey their entire rig without leaving the cab. There were reports of a South African firm working on a device to monitor and repel unauthorized intrusion with automatic and repeated releases of pepper sprays directed towards the trailer door. [7]

U.S. Customs has an abiding interest in Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) devices and technologies. They include large equipment to scan trailers, containers, and railcars with x-rays and gamma rays, such as the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (VACIS). The devices measure vehicle densities and variances to detect hidden compartments, voids, and cargo anomalies. There are also portable devices, some the size of pagers and cell phones, to “detect drugs, explosives and radiological material. These devices include particle and vapor detectors, personal radiation detectors, and isotope identifiers.” [8] Airport security also uses sensors that are applicable to freight, including explosive detection scanners for baggage.

There is a sharp increase in research and innovation to improve and deploy sensors tuned to weapons of mass destruction. Sensor technologies were part of both the DoD and DOT Research and Special Progams Administration’s Broad Area Announcements mentioned in the main paper, and it is fair to assume there were many sensor proposals among the over 12,600 combined responses. Customs sponsors related research too. For example, Customs is “developing an acoustic inspection device that ascertains the density of the fluid materials in sealed containers. That information is compared to a database of known acoustic signatures to provide material identification.” Nanotechnologies are especially promising to provide powerful yet inexpensive sensors with micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS). [9]

Wide Area Communications and Tracking

Wide area communications is an ideal platform on which to marry condition sensors, transaction confirmation tools, and geo-location information. Dramatic improvements in components, integration, and cost promise disruptive technologies that will change significantly today’s definition of both good business practices and good security.

Satellite-based systems are preferable to cellular for coverage footprints and potential global applicability. Cellular-based systems are generally less expensive and may be more suitable for some domestic applications.

The Global Positioning System (GPS) [10] is the most common source of geo-location data, but other sources are available. For example, Qualcomm’s OmniTRACS can draw location data from a different satellite configuration and SkyBitz uses proprietary location technology. Within the U.S., the FCC’s Enhanced 911 regulations require cellular system operators to implement a capability to identify the location of most emergency calls—a capability that will be transferable to logistics applications.

Potential sensors and transaction confirmation tools cover a wide array, tailorable to user needs. Examples include weapons of mass destruction sensors, RFID transponders for precision gate arrival confirmations, electronic seal integration, and asset management sensors such as empty/partial/full indicators.

Electrical power is an important consideration for wide area platforms, a consideration that grows in importance as more sensors and capabilities are added to the communications platform. Power is rarely an issue for conveyances that generate their own electricity, such as tractors, ships, and aircraft. Power is a challenge for devices, such as chassis and trailer monitors, that may be able to re-charge storage batteries when connected to power units. However, power is most vexing for devices with no access to external electricity, as would be the case for any device on standard (non-reefer) cargo containers. Battery failure troubled the Army’s early experiments with RFID tags on containers. Battery replacement in the field can be cumbersome and expensive.

One approach to the power issue is to encourage more research into batteries. Another approach is elegant engineering to reduce significantly the drain on batteries. SkyBitz is an example of the latter, cutting by a factor of 30 the power needed by GPS units. However, elegant engineering of location determination power needs may be insufficient if gangs of mobile sensors also draw on the same batteries.

Examples Of Wide Area Communications Platforms

There are many services available; a 1998 study identified over 250 long range positioning and navigation systems on the market. [11]

Qualcomm OmniTRACS

Qualcomm dominates the market for mobile satellite two-way data communications and tracking systems for the transportation industry, especially trucking. Thirty-eight of the top forty truckload carriers in the NAFTA region use the OmniTRACS system. Qualcomm also supports maritime, fixed assets, rail, public safety, and military applications. The unit cost for a standard installation will hold at $2000 per tractor at least through September 2002.

In addition to location determination and communications, the system provides data from vehicle-mounted sensors, such as speed, fuel and engine operations. Available security services include an emergency notification button—essentially a pre-set macro command that sends a digital location/“need help” message to the network center. Qualcomm also reports they can add features such as remote locking and unlocking of trailers; remote activating fuel/ignition cutoff switches; geo-fencing (notice of passing set boundaries); providing out-of-route notices; and adding live connections to cargo-related sensors and electronic seals.

Although primarily a productivity tool, OmniTRACS is already used for security purposes in several markets. The best known is for DoD munitions shipments in the U.S., all of which require near-constant monitoring with capabilities equivalent to OmniTRACS; the program is the Defense Transportation Tracking System (DTTS). Trucking companies in Mexico use the system primarily for security against theft, drug, and people smuggling.

OmniTRACS is not appropriate for dry cargo containers because it requires a robust power source. Qualcomm is re-engineering their untethered trailer tracking device, transitioning from analog to digital communications capability. That product is likely to be suitable for two markets: domestic trailers, especially for hazmat loads, and container chassis.

SkyBitz Global Locating System

Eagle Eye, Inc., generally known as SkyBitz, is a small firm with proprietary technology that permits very low power satellite location determination. They have prototype units in the field, report excellent results and orders in hand. The units can communicate through geostationary or low-earth orbit satellite constellations, offering continental or global coverage. The expected cost of a unit is $300, plus about $15 per month in communication charges for location data.

SkyBitz becomes more attractive as a security and productivity platform when other capabilities are added to location determination. For example, the firm teamed with WhereNet, a Real Time Locations Systems (RTLS) vendor that specializes in more precise monitoring within instrumented terminals and warehouses. Packaging their technologies in a single housing, they demonstrated in-terminal and cross-country monitoring for a major container carrier. [12]

For a more explicit security application, SkyBitz believes it is feasible to integrate their tracker with prototype detectors for nuclear materials, chemical and biological weapons, and human presence in containers. Successful integration would offer global capability for immediate alarm messages when contraband is being loaded into a container. No information is available on the power consumption and battery life implications of this package.

PAR Cargo*Mate

PAR Logistics Management Systems developed a monitoring system for container chassis. Supported by government cooperative agreements and partnerships with carriers, terminal operators, and a container lessor, PAR refined their design through considerable field work and piloting. The Chassis Data Unit includes GPS, cellular communications with satellite options, and a suite of sensors. Versions are available that will run off a self-contained or tractor-rechargeable battery.

The sensor options offer information relevant to operations and security. They include covered/uncovered (container presence) and hooked/unhooked. PAR offers geo-fencing and is working on both RFID readers to identify unique (tagged) containers. Safety sensors, such as tire pressure and tread wear, are also options.

Unit costs are about $300 per chassis in small volumes. An industry focus group worked with PAR to define an amortized cost target of $.35 to $.45 per chassis per day, including communications and operating costs. As production volumes increase and the unit cost declines, PAR expects to meet that range. [13]

TRI-MEX “Black Box”

Mitretek identified this European firm as one of three with chassis tracking capabilities comparable to PAR’s. Their TX Series products appear available for vessel, chassis, and truck monitoring. Customers are dangerous goods shippers and a large shipping insurance consortium known as the TT Club. Options include three-way communications with cellular, low earth orbit, and geostationary satellite links that enable 24/7 monitoring and an Electronic Freight Security System capable of notifying police precincts at the time of tampering or theft.

TRI-MEX is especially interesting because they are a core member of team commissioned by the European Commission (EC) to track end-to-end shipments between Europe and the U.S. The “Safe InterModal Transport Across the Globe” (SIMTAG) team, led by insurance managers Thomas Miller & Co., is to begin their process by verifying the security of source packing procedures. TRI-MEX is to adapt their products and build a container-mounted “black box” for SIMTAG. TRI-MEX declined to provide black box cost, schedule, or capability information because, as of mid-April 2002, the team is still in negotiation with the EC. The EC has invited the U.S. DOT to observe progress and results of SIMTAG. [14]

Biometrics and SmartCards

Biometrics tools enable positive identification of authorized personnel and there is great enthusiasm about their value. While research continues to improve these tools, several appear ready for immediate use, and it is possible to use more than one type at the same time for added security. The biometrics catalog recommended by the FAA lists seven categories: [15]

• Fingerprints
• Hand geometry
• Eye-retinal
• Eye-Iris
• Facial recognition
• Speaker (voice)
• Dynamic signature

Interest cuts across government security communities. There is a Biometrics Working Group co-chaired by the FAA and the DoD Counterdrug Technology Development Office, and it includes Customs, the FBI, and DARPA among other agencies. The working group identified four biometrics applications related to airports and several are transferable to freight facilities and operations. Among the four applications are employee identification, crowd surveillance, and crew identity verification en route. International vessel crew identify verification also interests the Coast Guard. [16]

Biometrics pilot applications include freight and passenger operations. One example is using fingerprint biometrics for airfreight truck driver access to O’Hare, tested with good results as part of an ITS Field Operational Test. Another example used iris recognition technology for access to secure areas at Charlotte airport by employees of US Airways.

Biometrics is likely to be an important component of two major initiatives. The first is the national Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC) and the second is in expected regulations for Commercial Driver Licenses (CDL). [17]

Smart cards are a natural complement to biometrics. Small portable memory and processing devices with near-contact data transmission capability, they can carry an individual’s biometric data. There appears to be a solid foundation of international ISO standards for smart cards. In addition, and more germane to issues such as the TWIC, there is a federal government standard for smart card interoperability. [18]

Smart cards have security and productivity uses beyond carrying biometric information. The best example is the O’Hare pilot that combined complete airfreight manifest data, driver authorization, and fingerprint information on a smart card carried by truck drivers delivering shipments to the airport. Preliminary findings showed the smart card application produced faster, more accurate cargo manifests and improved manifest data distribution “downstream” in the supply chain. [19]

3. There is further information on manual seals in section 4.2 of the “Study to Improve Efficiency, Safety, and Security for Loading and Transporting Military Containerized Munitions,” HCI and others, November 1999. This author was responsible for Chapter 4, “Transportation Procedures and Technology.” Another source on manual and electronic seals is “Report on Seal Technologies,” Scott Smith for the Subcommittee on Border Security Technology Team, U.S. Treasury Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of the United States Customs Service, Volume 7, March 22, 2002.

4. The chief operating officer of Maersk reported that 80% of their shipments fall in this category. (Personal conversation with Dick Schnacke of TransCore, who visited the Maersk executive in February 2002).

5. Conversations with Dick Schnacke. Transcore is also pursuing active seal technology.

6. TydenTek is a joint venture of seal manufacturer TydenBrammall and Israeli electronics firm Hi-G Tek.

7. “Study to Improve Efficiency, Safety, and Security,” pp. 143-144. The initial beta test of Operation Safe Commerce is likely to include a breakwire grid and protective sheeting (“Operation Safe Commerce, A New Model for the Container Shipping System,” J. Koziol, G. Watson, and W. Baron, US DOT Volpe Center, February 22, 2002.)

8. “Inputs to White Paper for Proposed Comprehensive Maritime Security Strategy,” Jeanne Lin, U.S. Customs, November 26, 2001.

9. DARPA created an Information Awareness Office to develop tools for instant access to better surveillance and sensor data. The Center for the Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technology released a useful survey and reference report, “Inspection Technology Phase I Report, Deconstructing the Pre-Technology Driven Paradigm for Border Security: A Survey of Port of Entry and Exit Inspection Process and Technology,” Lawrence Mallon, draft report, October 31, 2001. Peter Huber and Mark Mills offered another perspective in “How Technology Will Defeat Terrorism,” City Journal, Winter 2002. Alexandra Robbins addressed “smart dust” MEMS in “More than Meets the Eye,” PC Magazine, March 12, 2002.

10. GPS is a one-function system that broadcasts data for position determination. Any system that uses GPS must also have another method—satellite, cellular, or other—to transmit information.

11. Chris Drane and Chris Rizos, Positioning Systems in ITS, Boston: Artech House, 1998, pp. 237-239.

12. The capabilities complement each other: SkyBitz is limited in the terminal since it cannot provide container slot-specific accuracy; WhereNet is limited outside the terminal.

13. Mitretek Systems surveyed container and chassis tracking systems for U.S. DOT FHWA. The authors reported that four firms offer roughly equivalent capabilities: AmeriTrack, Marconi, PAR, and TRI-MEX. (“Contemporary Tracking System Products for Intermodal Transportation Assets and Containers,” A. Chande and C. Kain, draft dated February 22, 2002). PAR’s cost information is from that firm in personal correspondence.

14. “SIMTAG, Safe InterModal Transport Across the Globe,” Marion Robery of Thomas Miller, presented at the EU/USA Policy Forum, Jacksonville, April 11, 2002.

15. www.biometricscatalog.org. “Fact Sheet – Aviation Security Initiatives Post September 11, 2001,” FAA, November 2001.

16. “Fact Sheet - Aviation Security” and the statement of Acting Deputy FAA Administrator Monte Belger before the Senate Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, November 21, 2001.

17. “National Transportation Worker ID Card (TWIC) Credentialing Direct Action Group, Functional Requirements,” draft of January 23, 2002.

18. General Services Administration Government Smart Card Interoperability Specification (GSC-IS) Version 1, August 2000.

19. “Security Enhanced Electronic Supply Chain Manifest for the Air Cargo Supply Chain,” presentation by Erik Wik, ATA Foundation, to the Intermodal Freight Committee at the TRB Annual Meeting, January 2002. Information is available at www.cargosafety.org.

previous | next