Santa Teresa 

RFID E-Screening Demonstration 

Project Evaluation 

2FWREHU 2009
FOREWORD 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU, Public Law 109-59), Section 5503 – Motor Carrier Efficiency Study, set-aside 

funding to examine the application of wireless technology to improve the safety and efficiency of 

trucking operations in the United States. The intent of this section is to enter into partnership 

with the motor carrier and wireless technology industries to cooperatively identify and test 

promising applications and devices in a real-world environment, and to promote the adoption and 

use of successful solutions by an array of motor carriers. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) was assigned responsibility for 

administering this program via the Motor Carrier Efficiency Study (MCES). The program will be 

completed in two Phases. Phase I consists of the completion of activities pursuant to the first two 

objectives listed above. The actual field tests will be conducted under Phase II of the program. 

The results of these work tasks are summarized in this MCES Final Report. This Report, which 

also serves as the 2007 Report to Congress for the program, constitutes one of seven reports 

developed under Phase I of the MCES. The others are: 

• Motor Carrier Efficiency Study Final Literature Review Report: A Primer on Wireless 

Technologies and Freight Inefficiencies for Motor Carrier Operations, March 5, 2007. 

• Motor Carrier Efficiency Study Analysis Methodology Development Report, February 

11, 2007. 

• Motor Carrier Efficiency Study Stakeholder Summary Report, May 31, 2007. 

• Motor Carrier Efficiency Study Inefficiencies Report, July 2007. 

• Motor Carrier Efficiency Study Analysis of Wireless Technologies, December 7, 2007. 

• Motor Carrier Efficiency Study 2006 Annual Report, October 2007. 

NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for 

its contents or the use thereof. 

The contents of this Report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the 

accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy 

of the Department of Transportation. 

This Report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers named herein. Trade 

or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of this document. 
Technical Report Documentation Page—Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) 

1. Report No. 

FMCSA-RRT-09-013 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

October 2009 

4. Title and Subtitle 

SANTA TERESA RFID E-SCREENING DEMONSTRATION 

PROJECT EVALUATION 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Valinda Gorder, Geri Knoebel 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

ATR Institute, University of New Mexico 

801 University Blvd. SE, Suite 302 

Albuquerque, NM 87106 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-98-X00099, Task B4 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

November 2006–May 2007 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Office of Research and Analysis 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

FMCSA 

15. Supplementary Notes 

This program was administered through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). 

The FMCSA Program Manager is Jeff Loftus. 

16. Abstract 

This report provides an overview and results of a Phase 1 demonstration project using radio frequency 

identification device (RFID) transponders to electronically screen commercial motor vehicles passing through a 

state border-crossing facility at Santa Teresa, NM. This report also describes potential enhancements to the escreening system that could increase its utility in future applications, both for near-term enhancements to the 

limited operational concept, and for longer-term development of a “full-service” e-screening application for 

secondary border facilities at both Southern and Northern borders. 

17. Key Words 

Radio frequency identification, RFID, border crossing, 

electronic screening, FMCSA, Southern Border, 

commercial motor vehicle, CMV 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

67 

22. Price 

N/A 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. 
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

Table of APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 

yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha 

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 

VOLUME Note: Volumes greater than 

1000 L shall be shown in m3 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

MASS 

oz ounces 28.35 grams g 

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg 

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or “metric ton”) Mg (or “t”) 

TEMPERATURE Temperature is in exact degrees 

°F Fahrenheit 5 × (F-32) ÷ 9 

or (F-32) ÷ 1.8 

Celsius °C 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx 

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 

Force and Pressure or Stress 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

Table of APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA 

mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac 

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz 

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb 

Mg (or “t”) megagrams (or “metric ton”) 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE Temperature is in exact degrees 

°C Celsius 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit °F 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl 

Force & Pressure or Stress 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2 

* SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003, Section 508-accessible version September 2009) 

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS .....................................................................VII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ IX

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1

1.1 DOCUMENT SCOPE AND PURPOSE .......................................................................1 

1.2 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................1 

1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE ....................................................................................................3 

1.4 PROJECT TEAM ..........................................................................................................4 

1.5 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................5 

2. SANTA TERESA RFID E-SCREENING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 

OVERVIEW..........................................................................................................................7

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................7 

2.1.1 Operational Scenario......................................................................................... 8 

3. PROJECT EVALUATION................................................................................................13

3.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK.................................................................................13 

3.2 EVALUATION FINDINGS........................................................................................14 

3.2.1 General Conditions ......................................................................................... 14 

3.2.2 Baseline Evaluation ........................................................................................ 15 

3.2.3 Demonstration Test Evaluation....................................................................... 19 

3.2.4 Qualitative Response to the Demonstration Project ....................................... 23 

4. LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................25

4.1 KNOWN LIMITATIONS OF THE SANTA TERESA RFID E-SCREENING 

DEMONSTRATION PILOT AND RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS................25 

4.1.1 Operational Limitations of the Deployment Within the Limited Santa Teresa 

Deployment Context ................................................................................................... 25 

4.1.2 Proposed Enhancements to the Santa Teresa Operational Deployment to Meet 

Short-Term Needs of a 6–12-Month Continued Deployment .................................... 27 

4.1.3 Known Limitations of the Operational Concept for “Full-Service” EScreening Solutions .................................................................................................... 28 

4.1.4 Proposed Enhancements to the Santa Teresa Operational Concept to Address 

“Full-Service” E-Screening Needs ............................................................................. 29 

iii 
iv 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A—DAILY E-SCREENING SYSTEM TRANSACTION STATISTICS 

MARCH 5–MAY 12, 2007 .................................................................................................33

APPENDIX B—SANTA TERESA CARRIER EVALUATION FORM (COMPILATION 

OF BASELINE AND POST-DEMONSTRATION TEST FORMS).............................49
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Santa Teresa Project Team Members...............................................................................5 

Figure 2. Santa Teresa Border Crossing Facilities...........................................................................7 

Figure 3. Santa Teresa RFID Location Schematic for RFID Reader ..............................................9 

Figure 4. ROC Screen Displaying (Mock-up) E-Screening Results................................................9 

Figure 5. Transponders Read 3/05–3/17—Bar Graph ...................................................................33 

Figure 6. Transponders Read 3/19–3/31—Bar Graph ...................................................................34 

Figure 7. Transponders Read 4/02–4/14—Bar Graph ...................................................................35 

Figure 8. Transponders Read 4/16–4/28—Bar Graph ...................................................................36 

Figure 9. Transponders Read 4/30–5/12—Bar Graph ...................................................................37 

Figure 10. Transponder Screening Results 3/05–3/17—Pie Chart................................................38 

Figure 11. Transponder Screening Results 3/05–3/17—Bar Graph ..............................................39 

Figure 12. Transponder Screening Results 3/19–3/31—Pie Chart................................................40 

Figure 13. Transponder Screening Results 3/19–3/31—Bar Graph ..............................................41 

Figure 14. Transponder Screening Results 4/02–4/14—Pie Chart................................................42 

Figure 15. Transponder Screening Results 4/02–4/14—Bar Graph ..............................................43 

Figure 16. Transponder Screening Results 4/16–4/28—Pie Chart................................................44 

Figure 17. Transponder Screening Results 4/16–4/28—Bar Graph ..............................................45 

Figure 18. Transponder Screening Results 4/30–5/12—Pie Chart................................................46 

Figure 19. Transponder Screening Results 4/30–5/12—Bar Graph ..............................................47 

v 
vi 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Summary of Demonstration Test Results ........................................................................ xi 

Table 2. Baseline Evaluation Findings ..........................................................................................18 

Table 3. Hypotheses Underlying Demonstration and Related Results..........................................19 

Table 4. Enrolled Reads During Test Period .................................................................................20 

Table 5. Pass Reads During Test Period........................................................................................21 

Table 6. Fail Reads During Test Period and Reason for Failure ...................................................22 

Table 7. Transponders Read 3/05–3/07—Data Table....................................................................33 

Table 8. Transponders Read 3/19–3/31—Data Table....................................................................34 

Table 9. Transponders Read 4/02–4/14—Data Table....................................................................35 

Table 10. Transponders Read 4/16–4/28—Data Table..................................................................36 

Table 11. Transponders Read 4/30–5/12—Data Table..................................................................37 

Table 12. Transponder Screening Results 3/05–3/17—Data Table...............................................39 

Table 13. Transponder Screening Results 3/19–3/31—Data Table...............................................41 

Table 14. Transponder Screening Results 4/02–4/14—Data Table...............................................43 

Table 15. Transponder Screening Results 4/16–4/28—Data Table...............................................45 

Table 16. Transponder Screening Results 4/30–5/12—Data Table...............................................47 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS 

Acronym Definition 

ACE automated commercial environment 

ATRI American Transportation Research Institute 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection, USDHS 

CDL commercial driver’s license 

CMV commercial motor vehicle 

CVIEW Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange Window (CVISN component)

CVSA Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 

DMS dynamic message sign 

FAST Free and Secure Trade Program 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, USDOT 

HELP Heavy Vehicle License Plate, Inc. 

IBC international border crossing 

ID identification 

ITDS International Trade Data System, CBP 

ITS Intelligent Transportation System 

L&I license and insurance 

LIFIS Licencia Federal Information System 

MCMIS Motor Carrier Management Information System 

MCSAP Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program 

MTD Motor Transportation Division, State of New Mexico 

MX Mexico 

OOS out of service 

QC Query Central (FMCSA information system) 

RFID radio frequency identification device 

vii 
viii 

Acronym Definition 

ROC roadside operations computer (CVISN component) 

SAFER Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (FMCSA information system) 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

UNM University of New Mexico 

VIN vehicle identification number 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Santa Teresa radio frequency identification device (RFID) E-Screening Demonstration 

Project uses RFID transponders to electronically screen commercial vehicles through New 

Mexico’s state border-crossing facility at Santa Teresa, New Mexico. The Phase I demonstration 

project is being conducted to test the following hypotheses: 

• RFID transponders are a reliable means of vehicle/driver ID for use in state international 

border crossing (IBC) e-screening applications. 

• In-station e-screening at state IBCs has the potential to reduce the time required to 

process enrolled vehicles/drivers for an inspection selection decision. 

• In-station e-screening at state IBCs has the potential to enable enforcement officers to 

increase the number of vehicles abd drivers subject to full compliance verification as part 

of inspection selection decision. 

• In-station e-screening at state IBCs has the potential to enable enforcement officers to 

focus limited resources more directly on potentially higher-risk/noncompliant 

carriers/drivers. 

• In-station e-screening at state IBCs has the potential to reduce the time required for 

enrolled safe and compliant vehicles/drivers to process through the site. 

• In-station e-screening at IBCs has the potential to increase state IBC capacity/throughput. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Project Team 

The project team is comprised of the following organizations: 

• University of New Mexico’s (UNM’s) Alliance for Transportation Research Institute 

(ATRI). 

• Parker Young. 

• Heavy Vehicle License Plate, Inc. (HELP)/PrePass. 

• TransCore. 

Project partners include the following: 

• New Mexico Border Authority. 

• New Mexico Division Office of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA). 

• New Mexico Department of Public Safety: Motor Transportation Division (MTD). 

Schedule and Budget 

The project was implemented for under $200,000 via an Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 

earmark. All members of the project team contributed to project cost share. The project concept 

of operations was developed in November 2006, and the system functional and technical 

ix 
requirements were developed in December 2006. The system was designed, tested, and installed 

at the end of February 2007; it was operational, and vehicle enrollment began, on March 5, 2007. 

The last data download from the screening system for evaluation purposes was conducted on 

May 12, 2007. 

Concept of Operations 

An RFID reader on the ramp approach to MTD’s Santa Teresa Port captures the transponder 

identification (ID) number or “tag number” from the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) or User Fee 

tag on the vehicle windshield. Enrolled drivers with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-

issued driver ID cards are instructed to display their driver ID cards; the reader also reads the 

transponder number from the driver ID cards. 

The transponder IDs are transmitted to the local screening system. The screening system 

roadside operations computer (ROC) displays the transponder number, basic identifying 

information about the driver or vehicle, and the results of the screening decision. 

If the screening results show that either the vehicle or the driver is not enrolled in the program, 

an alarm sounds, and an MTD officer or FMCSA inspector parks the truck, notes the issue date 

of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) decal on the truck, and brings the driver and 

his paperwork into the office for enrollment and verification. 

When that driver or truck next enters the Santa Teresa Port, the RFID reader reads the vehicle 

and driver ID tags and transmits the tag numbers to the local screening system, triggering a 

screening query to the local database. Vehicles are screened to validate: 

• Currency of truck (power unit) CVSA decal. 

• Currency of power unit registration. 

• Federal operating authority status of carrier operating the vehicle. 

• Current insurance. 

• For driver tags, commercial driver’s license (CDL) status. 

Results of the screening decision are displayed on the ROC, along with identifying information. 

Where results of the automated query result in a “pass” indicator (indicating that the 

vehicle/driver is compliant for all factors verified by the e-screening system), the MTD/FMCSA 

inspector has the option of waving the vehicle/driver through or pulling the vehicle out of the 

queue for a random inspection compliance check. 

Where results of the automated query result in a “fail” indicator (indicating that the 

vehicle/driver is noncompliant for one or more factors verified by the e-screening system), the 

ROC sounds an alarm and displays a “fail” message, along with the factors generating the “fail” 

(e.g., “check registration,” “check CDL,” or “check operating authority,” etc.). Actions taken 

based on the “fail” decision are at the discretion of the officer processing the vehicle. 

x 
Major Evaluation Findings 

Fourteen carriers participated in the initial 10-week demonstration. Five drivers and 100 trucks 

were enrolled in the system. More than 5,500 transponder reads were recorded during the 10-

week period; of those, more than 2,400 were reads of enrolled transponders. 

Results of the Phase I demonstration test indicate that the test met the objectives defined in the 

hypotheses, as outlined in Table 1 below. 

Table 1. Summary of Demonstration Test Results 

Premise Tested in 

Demonstration Project Summary Results 

RFID Technology can be used to reliably 

identify vehicles/drivers at ramp speeds. 

99+% read rate 

In-station e-screening can reduce the 

time required to process vehicles for 

inspection selection. 

Full electronic verification of enrolled vehicles was routinely 

accomplished via the e-screening system in less than one 

(1) second, vs. 15 minutes required to manually verify all 

items checked by the screening system. 

In-station e-screening has the potential 

to increase the number of 

vehicles/drivers routinely subject to full 

compliance verification. 

Subsequent to the e-screening system implementation, the 

number of vehicles screened for full compliance was 

increased by 300%. If all transponder-equipped vehicles 

through the port had been enrolled, the increase would 

have been more than 800%. There is potential for 

significantly higher increases at higher-volume facilities. 

In-station e-screening focuses limited 

enforcement resources on 

noncompliant/ unknown vehicles/drivers. 

The system positively identified compliant/noncompliant 

vehicles more than 99% of the time, enabling officers to 

focus their efforts on vehicles with “fail” reads and on those 

which were not transponder-equipped. 

In-station e-screening has the potential 

to reduce processing time for compliant 

vehicles. 

On-site observations over an eight-hour time period 

indicated that each vehicle pulled out of the queue for 

credentials verification, Level 1 inspection, and/or other 

form of review, and found to be fully compliant upon 

completion of the review, spent an average of 27 minutes in 

the review/inspection process. Average time saved, when 

distributed among all vehicles in the queue, was 1.8 

minutes per vehicle. 

In-station e-screening provides the 

potential to increase 

capacity/throughput. 

The volumes at Santa Teresa are too low to draw 

meaningful conclusions—positive or negative—regarding 

this hypothesis. 

xi 
Limitations of Operational Concept 

From a technical and operational standpoint, the system performed as it was intended to perform. 

However, there are several key limitations to use of the system in broader applications when 

considering “full-service” e-screening needs. These limitations are related primarily to two 

factors: 

• Schedule and budget parameters of the Phase I demonstration project (project initiation in 

fall of 2006, with a required end date of May 31, 2007, and budget of less than 

$200,000). 

• Subset of International Trade Data System (ITDS) currently being exchanged between 

CBP and FMCSA not yet available for use by secondary facilities. 

The key limitations of the operational concept are outlined below. 

• On-site enrollment is time-consuming and thus a limitation to wide deployment, 

particularly when considering application in large, high-volume facilities. 

• An on-site enrollment process requiring manual updates in the field limits data currency 

and can result in false “fail” reads (for example, a new CVSA decal has been issued, but 

the enrollment database has not been updated to reflect issuance of the new decal). 

• Both the truck and the trailer are required to display a current CVSA decal. Trailers are 

not equipped with separate RFID tags. Within the Phase I demonstration project 

parameters, there was no way to electronically identify the trailer, and thus no way to 

electronically verify the currency of the trailer’s CVSA decal. 

• Drivers of carriers participating in the FAST program are likely to have driver ID cards. 

Drivers participating only in the User Fee transponder program (among carriers enrolled 

in the Santa Teresa Phase 1 Demonstration Project) did not have CBP-issued driver ID 

cards. 

• Because the system was originally developed as a six-week demonstration, with very 

limited funding, the screening decision is displayed only inside the MTD/FMCSA facility 

on the ROC. The demonstration period was extended to 10 weeks at the behest of the 

participating fleets and MTD. 

Addressing Limitations 

The Santa Teresa Project Team has identified a variety of possible ways to address the 

limitations of the Phase 1 demonstration. Central to these solutions is the potential to access the 

subset of the ITDS data set currently being shared by CBP with FMCSA. 

Motor carriers and other eligible parties are required to file an electronic manifest with CBP 

prior to entering the United States through all Southern land ports. The e-manifest is filed via the 

CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Truck Manifest System at least 24 hours prior 

to a trip. Data from the manifest are “packaged” by CBP’s ITDS system and electronically 

transmitted to each of the Federal government agencies which require documentation for clearing 

or licensing cargo. 

xii 
xiii 

FMCSA receives a data packet related to truck, trailer, driver from each e-manifest filed. 

FMCSA electronically verifies the data transmitted, and then transmits the verified data set (with 

check flags to indicate potential compliance issues) back to CBP. 

The Santa Teresa Project Team has identified a need to interface the subset of ITDS data verified 

by FMCSA with e-screening systems at Southern- and Northern-state IBCs. Access to the ITDS 

data subset would address many of the limitations identified in the Phase 1 Santa Teresa 

Demonstration Project, including: 

• Access to the ITDS data set would obviate the need for on-site enrollment (the RFID tag 

number on the power unit would be linked to key vehicle/carrier identifiers such as VIN, 

plate number, and carrier USDOT number via the ITDS data set). 

• The ITDS data set ties the power unit, trailer, and driver together on a per-trip basis. If 

the power unit can be identified via the RFID tag, the driver and trailer can be identified 

and screened electronically, even in the absence of driver and trailer RFID tags. 

• Access/interface to the ITDS data set, combined with related access/interface to Safety 

and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER)/Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange 

Window (CVIEW), Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), and other 

centralized data sources, addresses the issue of data currency. 

Interface of the e-screening system with a dynamic message sign (DMS) and handheld devices 

will provide capabilities to notify officers of the screening decision and to direct drivers. 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 DOCUMENT SCOPE AND PURPOSE 

This document is the final report of the Santa Teresa Radio Frequency Identification Device 

(RFID) E-Screening Demonstration Project. It provides an overview of the project and the results 

of the project evaluation effort, and describes potential enhancements to the e-screening system 

which could increase its utility in future applications, both for near-term enhancements to the 

limited operational concept, and for longer-term development of a “full-service” e-screening 

application for secondary border facilities at both Southern and Northern borders. 

1.2 BACKGROUND 

Thousands of Mexican-domiciled commercial vehicles cross into the United States every day 

through international border crossings (IBCs) in New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, and California. 

At present, virtually all commercial truck trips northbound from Mexico to the US are drayage 

trips. The truck, or power unit, drops or unloads the trailer at a warehouse within the US 

Commercial Zone, then turns around, reloads—or, more frequently, picks up another trailer in 

Mexico—and makes one or more additional northbound “drop and hook” trips per day. 

Currently, most Mexican-domiciled trucks are permitted to travel only within the commercial 

zone in the United States—a limited geographic area generally extending 3 to 20 miles north of 

the municipalities along the US-Mexican border. In New Mexico, the commercial zone extends 

throughout Dona Ana and Luna Counties, considerably more than 20 miles north of the border. 

To gain entry into the United States, Mexican trucks must proceed through designated 

commercial land ports. Each set of commercial land ports includes a Mexican Customs facility 

on the Mexican side of the border, and a series of US Federal and state facilities on the US side 

of the border. Trucks crossing into the United States from Mexico are first processed through a 

facility operated by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). A variety of other Federal 

agencies are typically co-located at the CBP site, including the Drug Enforcement 

Administration and the Department of Agriculture. Having been processed through this first 

facility, the vehicle then proceeds through clearance processes conducted by state Motor Carrier 

Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) agencies and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) border inspectors. 

State and FMCSA operations may be located within the CBP site, with state, FMCSA, and CBP 

personnel operating out of the same “booths,” as at Nogales. Alternatively, the state and FMCSA 

may share a facility separate from the CBP site, as in New Mexico. In other locations, such as 

Texas, FMCSA operates out of a limited area of CBP sites, and the state operates its own 

facilities outside the CBP compound. In all cases, vehicles proceed through CBP clearance and 

inspection processes first, and then proceed through FMCSA/state processes. 

1 
FMCSA and state MCSAP inspectors are tasked with ensuring that Mexican vehicles entering 

the United States meet specific safety and compliance requirements related to: 

• Driver credentials such as commercial driver’s license (CDL) status, class, and 

restrictions. 

• Federal operating authority status. 

• Proof of insurance at the appropriate coverage level. 

State MCSAP agencies are also concerned with validating: 

• Mexican vehicle registration status. 

• Compliance with state size and weight limitations. 

• Other, state-specific requirements. 

At present, the state and FMCSA inspection selection and clearance processes at virtually all 

sites are manual processes. Manual inspection processes are limited in terms of efficiency and 

“coverage.” Verification of CDL, insurance, registration, Federal operating authority status, etc., 

can require parking a vehicle and bringing driver and paperwork into an office, and can take as 

much as 15 minutes of the officer’s and driver’s time. Even if handhelds are used (obviating the 

need to park the vehicle), these verifications can take several minutes to complete. At highvolume stations, where the lengths of the queues require processing a vehicle every few seconds, 

there is insufficient time to manually conduct these verifications on every vehicle. Even at lowvolume stations, there is insufficient manpower to conduct these detailed verifications on every 

vehicle. 

As a result, state and FMCSA inspection selection and clearance decisions are made based on a 

variety of factors, including: 

• Officer/inspector knowledge of safety performance and history of specific carriers. 

• Visual check of the CVSA decal and its currency. 

• Walk-around/visual check of tire pressure, air brakes, and other obvious physical defects. 

• Occasionally, limited conversation with the driver. 

• Officer expertise. 

• Random inspection. 

The Santa Teresa RFID E-Screening Demonstration Project was designed to begin to address the 

inherent inefficiencies of manual inspection selection processes by using RFID technology to 

electronically identify the vehicle and driver, in conjunction with an electronic database and 

screening algorithm to verify compliance with safety and credential compliance requirements. 

RFID technology was selected because 80–90 percent of the power units crossing into the United 

States from Mexico are already equipped with RFID transponders issued by CBP. These are 

either Free and Secure Trade Program (FAST) or user fee transponders, predominantly User Fee 

transponders at the Santa Teresa facility. CBP assesses a $10 fee per trip each time a vehicle 

comes through one of its land ports. By purchasing a user fee transponder, a carrier pays a $200 

2 
annual fee in lieu of any trip fees. As most of these drayage vehicles are crossing into the United 

States several times a day, the cost of the user fee transponder is far lower on an annual basis 

than the fee per trip. As a result, the user fee transponders are in widespread use. 

Because it used the transponders that are already on 80–90 percent of the Mexican-domiciled 

trucks, the project did not require carriers to obtain a second identification device for their 

vehicles, and the project opened the doors for eventual interface of the e-screening system with 

the subset of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) data already being exchanged between 

CBP and FMCSA. 

The project was funded through an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) earmark provided to 

University of New Mexico’s (UNM) American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI). The 

project concept of operations was developed in the fall of 2006, following discussions with New 

Mexico Motor Transportation Division (MTD) officers and New Mexico FMCSA Division 

Office personnel involved in commercial vehicle processing at the US-Mexican border. 

The project concept of operations was designed to address as many of the current manual 

processing limitations as possible, within the limited timeframe (November 1, 2006 through May 

31, 2007) and budget (<$200,000) available. The demonstration project was not envisioned as a 

“full-service” e-screening solution. Rather, it was designed to test a set of basic hypotheses 

described below in Section 1.3, Project Purpose, to demonstrate the potential value of escreening in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the safety/compliance verification and 

inspection selection processes at state and FMCSA IBC facilities. 

The Santa Teresa site provides an excellent and unique test site for e-screening and other ITS 

applications at the Southern border because it is a low-volume site (volume is approximately 

120– 140 trips per day) which is routinely staffed 5.5 days a week with a full complement of 

FMCSA border inspectors and state MCSAP officers. Vehicles through the site are 

representative of vehicles/trips through any Southern border site: FAST and User Fee 

transponder-equipped as well as non-transponder-equipped vehicles; vehicles from the interior of 

Mexico as well as from border communities. The fact that both FMCSA and state inspectors 

operate out of the same facility makes possible the sharing of examination/evaluation of 

issues/processes among Federal and state inspectors, as well as issues unique to state clearance 

processes. The site sees the same safety and compliance issues as any other Southern 

state/FMCSA IBC, but it sees these issues on a smaller scale. New processes, systems, and 

technologies can be introduced, tested, and evaluated more quickly and with less potential for 

negative impact on site operations than at higher-volume sites. 

1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE 

The primary purpose of the Santa Teresa E-Screening Demonstration Project was to demonstrate 

the potential value of e-screening, using the same transponders used by CBP (transponders 

already installed on 80–90 percent of the trucks using the port) in improving the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the safety/compliance verification and inspection selection processes at 

state/FMCSA IBC facilities. The project team established six hypotheses to be tested in the 

limited deployment: 

3 
• RFID transponders are a reliable means of vehicle/driver ID for use in state IBC escreening applications. 

• In-station e-screening at state IBCs has the potential to reduce the time required to 

process enrolled vehicles/drivers for an inspection selection decision. 

• In-station e-screening at state IBCs has the potential to enable enforcement officers to 

increase the number of vehicles/drivers subject to full compliance verification as part of 

inspection selection decision. 

• In-station e-screening at state IBCs has the potential to enable enforcement officers to 

focus limited resources more directly on potentially higher-risk/noncompliant 

carriers/drivers. 

• In-station e-screening at state IBCs has the potential to reduce the time required for 

enrolled safe and compliant vehicles/drivers to be processed through the site. 

• In-station e-screening at IBCs has the potential to increase state IBC capacity/throughput. 

1.4 PROJECT TEAM 

The project team is comprised of the following organizations: 

• UNM’s ATRI. ATRI was responsible for project management and administration, 

project evaluation, and preparation of project reports. 

• Parker Young. Parker Young developed the project concept of operations and assisted 

in development of screening system business rules and functional requirements, project 

evaluation, and preparation of final reports. 

• Heavy Vehicle License Plate, Inc. (HELP)/PrePass. HELP, Inc./PrePass designed, 

developed, installed, and supported the project’s e-screening software. 

• TransCore. TransCore provided, installed, and calibrated the reader used in the escreening system. (TransCore is providing the readers and 

installation/calibration/ongoing maintenance services for all CBP RFID installations.) 

Project partners include the following: 

• New Mexico Border Authority, an organization devoted to facilitating cross-border 

trade in New Mexico, assisted with enlistment of 14 carriers for participation in the 

demonstration; with ongoing outreach among participating carriers, including conduct of 

qualitative baseline and post-deployment carrier evaluations; and with translation of 

project documents into Spanish. 

• New Mexico Division Office of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

utilized the e-screening system during the 10-week pilot period, enrolling vehicles and 

drivers, integrating system use into its operations, and providing valuable feedback 

regarding desirable system enhancements. 

• New Mexico Department of Public Safety, MTD also utilized the e-screening system 

during the 10-week pilot period, enrolling vehicles and drivers, integrating system use 

4 
5 

into its operations, and providing valuable feedback regarding desirable system 

enhancements. 

Figure 1. Santa Teresa Project Team Members 

1.5 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION 

The document is organized in three sections following this Introduction as follows: 

• Section 2 Project Overview—describes the project, the concept of operations, and the 

enrollment process. 

• Section 3 Project Evaluation—discusses project results, including system performance, 

system transaction statistics, and carrier and FMCSA/MTD qualitative response to 

demonstration project. 

• Section 4 Limitations of the Initial Concept of Operations and Recommendations—

discusses operational limitations as they relate to the limited Santa Teresa context, 

suggested system enhancements for the near-term operational context, project limitations 

in the larger context of a “full-service” e-screening system suitable for deployment at any 

Southern or Northern secondary IBC facility, and recommendations. 

• Appendices 

2. SANTA TERESA RFID E-SCREENING DEMONSTRATION 

PROJECT OVERVIEW 

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

New Mexico has two designated commercial vehicle crossings at the US-Mexican border, 

located at Columbus and Santa Teresa. Each crossing includes a facility operated by CBP, and a 

separate but proximate facility operated by the New Mexico Department of Public Safety’s 

MTD, jointly staffed by FMCSA. 

The state Santa Teresa Port is located approximately one-quarter mile north of the CBP Santa 

Teresa border crossing facility, as shown in Figure 2 below. 

Figure 2. Santa Teresa Border Crossing Facilities 

The Santa Teresa Port is jointly staffed by MTD and FMCSA. Trucks entering the United States 

at Santa Teresa are first processed by CBP at its site, and then proceed along a limited-access 

roadway directly to the state’s Santa Teresa Port, where vehicles and drivers are subject to 

inspection for compliance with FMCSA and state regulatory requirements. 

7 
At the Santa Teresa Port, MTD officers and FMCSA inspectors validate: 

• Driver credentials such as CDL status and restrictions. 

• Federal operating authority status. 

• Proof of insurance and insurance coverage. 

• Vehicle registration status (state rather than Federal requirement). 

Level 1 inspection within the last 90 days, as evidenced by the presence of current CVSA decals 

on both truck and trailer. 

MTD and FMCSA may also review driver logs, trip manifests, and other relevant documents. 

Level 1 inspections are conducted in cases in which the CVSA decal has expired. Level 1 and 

other inspections may also be conducted as deemed warranted by the MTD officers and FMCSA 

inspectors at the site. 

At the Santa Teresa Port, the manual process to fully verify all safety and regulatory 

requirements requires parking the truck, bringing the driver and associated paperwork into the 

office, querying multiple centralized databases, and physically examining paperwork. The full 

manual verification process requires 15 minutes or more of the inspector’s and the driver’s time. 

Until recently, inspection selection decisions at the Santa Teresa Port, as at most state border 

inspection facilities, were based on a variety of factors, including: 

• Officer/inspector knowledge of safety performance and history of specific carriers (Santa 

Teresa is a relatively low-volume facility, used primarily by drayage haulers, so officers 

tend to see many of the same carriers/trucks on a daily basis). 

• Visual check of the CVSA decal. 

• Quick walk-around to visually note tire pressure, condition of air brakes, other obvious 

defects. 

• Officer expertise. 

• Random inspection. 

In March 2007, the ATRI Project Team (ATRI, Parker Young, HELP, Inc./PrePass, and 

TransCore) deployed an RFID e-screening demonstration project at MTD’s Santa Teresa Port of 

Entry to assist MTD officers and FMCSA inspectors in making inspection selection decisions. 

The Phase I system uses the same transponder and reader technology as is used by CBP in its 

FAST and User Fee programs. Approximately 80–90 percent of the vehicles through the state 

Santa Teresa Port are equipped with FAST and/or user fee transponders. 

2.1.1 Operational Scenario 

A TransCore eGo 2101 RFID reader was installed on a temporary pole on the ramp approach to 

MTD’s Santa Teresa Port (see Figure 3). The reader captures the transponder identification 

number (ID) or “tag number” from the CBP FAST or user fee tag on the vehicle windshield. 

Enrolled drivers with CBP-issued driver ID cards are instructed to display their driver ID cards, 

8 
and the reader also reads the transponder number from the driver ID card (see CBP Web site: 

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/cargo_security/ctpat/fast/ ). 

Figure 3. Santa Teresa RFID Location Schematic for RFID Reader 

The transponder IDs are transmitted via an 8013/RS422 communications cable to the local 

screening system, developed for the project by HELP, Inc./PrePass. The screening system 

roadside operations computer (ROC) displays the transponder number, basic identifying 

information about the driver (if driver ID tag is present) and vehicle (if vehicle ID tag is present), 

and the results of the screening decision, as shown in Figure 4 below. 

Figure 4. ROC Screen Displaying (Mock-up) E-Screening Results 

If the screening results show the vehicle or driver are not enrolled in the program, an audible 

alarm sounds, and an MTD officer or FMCSA inspector parks the truck, notes the issue date of 

9 
the CVSA decal on the truck, and brings the driver and his paperwork into the office for 

enrollment and verification. 

The enrollment process includes verification and data entry of the following: 

Driver Enrollment: 

• CBP-issued driver identification tag number (pre-populated by system read). 

• Driver name and date of birth. 

• CDL number. 

• CDL date of issue/expire date. 

• Mexico (MX)-only restriction. 

• CDL status from the Mexican Licencia Federal Information System (LIFIS). 

Vehicle Enrollment: 

• FAST or user fee tag number (pre-populated by system read). 

• Carrier name and address. 

• Power unit vehicle identification number (VIN). 

• Power unit plate number and country of issue. 

• United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) number of carrier operating 

vehicle. 

• Vehicle registration issue/expire dates. 

• Insurance effective/expire dates. 

• Federal operating authority status of carrier operating vehicle. 

• CVSA decal issue/expire dates. 

When that driver or truck next enters the Santa Teresa Port, the RFID reader reads the vehicle 

and driver ID tags, and transmits the tag numbers to the local screening system, triggering a 

screening query to the local database. Results of the screening decision are displayed on the 

ROC, along with identifying information. 

Where results of the automated query result in a “pass” indicator (indicating that the 

vehicle/driver is compliant for all factors verified by the e-screening system), the MTD 

officer/FMCSA inspector has the option of waving the vehicle/driver through or pulling the 

vehicle out of the queue for a random inspection/compliance check. 

Where results of the automated query result in a “fail” indicator (indicating that the 

vehicle/driver is noncompliant for one or more factors verified by the e-screening system), the 

ROC sounds an alarm (using a tone different from the “not enrolled” alarm) and displays a “fail” 

message, along with the factors generating the “fail” (for example, “check registration,” “check 

CDL,” or “check operating authority,” etc.). Actions taken based on the “fail” decision are at the 

discretion of the officer/inspector processing the vehicle. 

10 
11 

In the Phase I demonstration system, the Federal operating authority status was updated weekly 

via an automated refresh from the PrePass Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange Window 

(CVIEW). The Federal operating authority status data in the PrePass CVIEW is updated nightly 

via an interface with the national Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER) database. 

3. PROJECT EVALUATION 

The demonstration project was not envisioned as a “full-service” e-screening solution. Rather, it 

was designed to demonstrate the potential value of e-screening, using the same transponders used 

by CBP (transponders already installed on 80–90 percent of the trucks using the port), in 

improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the safety/compliance verification and inspection 

selection processes at secondary IBC facilities. The project team established six hypotheses to be 

tested in the limited deployment, as outlined below: 

• RFID transponders are a reliable method of vehicle/driver ID for use in state IBC escreening applications. 

• In-station e-screening at state IBCs has the potential to reduce the time required to 

process enrolled vehicles/drivers for an inspection selection decision. 

• In-station e-screening at state IBCs has the potential to enable enforcement officers to 

increase the number of vehicles/drivers subject to full compliance verification as part of 

inspection selection decision. 

• In-station e-screening at state IBCs has the potential to enable enforcement officers to 

focus limited resources more directly on potentially higher-risk/noncompliant 

carriers/drivers. 

• In-station e-screening at state IBCs has the potential to reduce the time required for 

enrolled safe and compliant vehicles/drivers to be processed through the site. 

• In-station e-screening at IBCs has the potential to increase state IBC capacity/throughput. 

3.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 

Three evaluation time periods were established in testing these hypotheses: 

• Baseline. 

• Demonstration. 

• Post-Demonstration. 

Four evaluation methods were used: 

• Observation: During the baseline and test evaluation periods, ATRI evaluators observed 

and documented various activities/events at the Santa Teresa site. Forms were developed 

for recording observed activities/events. The observations comprised a sample of data 

from which the team could extrapolate/draw conclusions regarding, for example, the 

percentage of vehicles/drivers subject to full compliance check prior to installation of the 

RFID e-screening system. 

• “Staged” Events: During the baseline evaluation period, the team established certain 

parameters—for example, the time required to manually compliance-check all data 

elements included in the e-screening system. To establish these (and other similar data), 

the evaluators requested MTD officers/FMCSA inspectors to perform certain functions 

with MX vehicles/drivers while being observed/documented by the evaluator. 

13 
• Interviews: During each of the three evaluation periods, evaluators interviewed MTD 

officers/FMCSA inspectors and participating “test” carriers (three carriers who agreed to 

participate in pre-test and post-test interviews) regarding various aspects of Baseline and 

Test operations. 

• System Data: Daily transaction statistics data maintained in the e-screening 

system were downloaded every 14 days during the pilot test period (see 

Appendix A for daily transaction statistics). 

The Baseline Evaluation established/characterized the pre-test operating environment and was 

used as the benchmark against which to evaluate the impact/results of the test. The Baseline 

evaluation was conducted in February 2007. 

The Demonstration Evaluation established/characterized the test operational environment and 

was conducted between March 5 and May 12, 2007. 

The Post-Demonstration Evaluation characterized MTD/FMCSA and test carrier perceptions of 

the strengths/limitations of the test, impact on their operations, and recommendations for future 

e-screening deployments. 

3.2 EVALUATION FINDINGS 

3.2.1 General Conditions 

For purposes of the evaluation, the demonstration test ran from March 5, when vehicle 

enrollment was initiated, to May 12, when the last transaction statistics were downloaded from 

the system (the system continues to be operational beyond May 12, but the evaluation data are 

based on the period of March 5 to May 12, 2007). 

Fourteen carriers were solicited for system participation by the New Mexico Border Authority, 

and all 14 enthusiastically agreed to participate. Among the participating carriers, 100 trucks and 

five drivers were enrolled in the system. Enrollment was deliberately restricted for two reasons: 

• Because the project was introducing new concepts (processing/clearance via e-screening) 

and new requirements (pulling vehicle/driver out of queue for enrollment), the project 

team wanted to fully inform carriers of the process/requirements prior to implementation 

to ensure buy-in among carriers and drivers using the Santa Teresa facility. 

• The primary focus of MTD and FMSCA personnel at the port is safety/compliance 

verification and enforcement, rather than e-screening system enrollment and system 

testing/evaluation. Each vehicle and driver enrollment and verification required 

approximately 30 minutes of officer and driver time. The goals of the project team and 

FMCSA/MTD were to enroll enough vehicles to validate the test, while not 

overburdening officers/inspectors with excessive time spent enrolling vehicles/drivers. 

Explaining the project to potential carrier participants, outlining the potential short- and longterm advantages, as well as the potential for lost time in the one-time enrollment process, made it 

possible to bring carriers in as project partners, rather than as unknowing subjects of the test. By 

14 
restricting the enrollment requirement to 100 vehicles, FMCSA and MTD staff could 

accommodate the enrollment processing needs over a 4-week period without adversely affecting 

their enforcement operations. 

More than 5,500 transponders were read by the system in the 10-week evaluation period. Over 

2,400 of these reads were “enrolled” reads—reads of transponders enrolled in the system. By the 

end of April/early May, when FMCSA and MTD had completed vehicle enrollment, on a daily 

basis 56 percent of the reads were enrolled reads. 

3.2.2 Baseline Evaluation 

The baseline evaluation consisted of interviews with several participating carriers, interviews 

with MTD and FMCSA staff regarding strengths/limitations of the current manual processes, and 

observation/staged events related to vehicle processing through the Santa Teresa Port. Carrier 

interviews were conducted with three participating carriers in February 2007. MTD/FMCSA 

staff interviews were conducted in February and March 2007. Observations/staged events were 

conducted at the Santa Teresa Port during a six-hour period on February 27, 2007. 

3.2.2.1 Carrier Interview Results 

As mentioned above, 14 carriers were contacted by the New Mexico Border Authority to 

determine their interest in participating in the pilot project. All 14 carriers enthusiastically agreed 

to participate. These participating carriers operate more than 300 trucks; however, only some of 

these vehicles routinely operate through the Santa Teresa Port. In some cases, carriers may use 

IBCs in El Paso or elsewhere for some of their operations, depending on the loads’ points of 

origin/destinations. 

In terms of strengths of the existing Santa Teresa operations, the three carriers selected for 

interview indicated the following: 

• Faster access to clients: All three carriers interviewed indicated that they used the Santa 

Teresa Port for all or a portion of their operations because the port has less traffic, and 

hence shorter wait times, than other nearby border-crossing facilities, and thus provides 

for faster access to clients. 

• Individualized attention: Carriers reported that they appreciated the “individualized 

attention” received at the Santa Teresa Port. MTD officers at the Santa Teresa facility 

have assisted some of these carriers with terminal inspections, outreach/education, and 

training efforts on US safety assurance requirements (including hours-of-service 

requirements, maintenance of log books, pre- and post-trip inspection processes, etc.). 

Carriers appreciate these efforts to help ensure their compliance. Some carriers will also 

bring power units in need of Level 1 inspection to the port on a proactive basis to obtain 

inspections and new CVSA decals. 

In terms of limitations of the existing manual process, carriers described the following: 

• Wide range of operating hours/limited operating hours: The operating hours at the state 

Santa Teresa facility are based on the operating hours of Mexican Customs. MTD and the 

New Mexico Border Authority are working with Mexican Customs to extend operating 

15 
16 

hours through 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. However, operating hours are beyond 

the control of FMCSA or MTD, and outside the potential impact area of the 

demonstration project. 

• Processing delays due to trailer inspection: At Southern border crossings, both the truck 

and the trailer are required to display current CVSA decals. Often, in drayage operations, 

the trailer being hauled is not owned by (or leased by) the carrier operating the power 

unit. Carriers expressed frustration that they work very hard to ensure the safety and 

compliance of their power units and drivers, but are pulled over for secondary inspection 

due to issues with the trailers. Carriers understand and appreciate the need for inspection 

of the trailers, but indicated that because the trailer citation is assessed to the carrier 

pulling the trailer, rather than to the owner of the trailer, there is little incentive for the 

trailer-owner to comply with the inspection requirement. Carriers suggested assessing the 

violation/citation against the owner of the trailer to provide a stronger incentive to owners 

of the trailers to comply with requirements. 

Carriers interviewed indicated that they were willing to participate in the Santa Teresa EScreening Demonstration Project for the following reasons: 

• They expected to be able to minimize wait time for clearing vehicles through the station. 

• Participation did not require adding another identification device to the truck (i.e., system 

used user fee or FAST tag already on the truck). 

• Participation did not require any kind of fee paid on the part of the carrier. 

Expected benefits among participating carriers included the following: 

• Facilitation of the import/export process. 

• Reduced inspection of safe and legal vehicles and drivers, resulting in productivity 

savings for the carrier. 

3.2.2.2 MTD/FMCSA Interview Results 

MTD and FMCSA border inspection staff working out of the Santa Teresa Port were interviewed 

on several occasions regarding the nature of the existing clearance process and its associated 

strengths and weaknesses, in the course of establishing the business requirements for the Santa 

Teresa e-screening system. Key findings of these interviews are highlighted below. 

Existing Process Description 

At the Santa Teresa Port, MTD officers and FMCSA inspectors are tasked with validating the 

following: 

• Driver credentials such as commercial driver’s license (CDL) status and restrictions. 

• Federal operating authority status. 

• Proof of insurance and insurance coverage. 

• Vehicle registration status (state rather than Federal requirement). 
MTD and FMCSA may also review driver logs, trip manifests, and other relevant documents. 

Level 1 inspections are conducted in cases in which the CVSA decal is expired. Level 1 and 

other inspections may also be conducted as deemed warranted by the MTD officers and FMCSA 

inspectors at the site. Size and weight inspection details are also periodically conducted by MTD, 

using portable scales. 

Strengths of Existing Processes 

FMCSA and MTD officers appreciate the value of the hands-on contact with drivers and 

observation of vehicles. A CVSA decal can be current, but six weeks old, and therefore might 

not reflect safety issues that had arisen since the decal was issued. A vehicle can still have a 

safety issue, even if the decal is current. Even limited conversation with drivers can be an 

important tool in making an inspection selection decision. 

Limitations of the Existing Processes 

Prior to initiation of the Santa Teresa E-Screening Demonstration Project, verification of all of 

the factors outlined above could be conducted only by parking the truck and bringing the driver 

and paperwork inside the office to run a series of queries against LIFIS, Motor Carrier 

Management Information System (MCMIS), safety and fitness electronic records (SAFER), and 

other centralized databases. FMCSA inspectors are equipped with handheld devices, but the 

handhelds are of somewhat limited utility at Santa Teresa because site communications are not 

reliable, a circumstance which results in frequent signal drops from the handhelds. 

Bringing the driver and paperwork into an office, reviewing paper documents, and conducting 

the series of manual queries required to verify the factors outlined above can take as much as 15 

minutes of the officer’s and driver’s time. Even if handhelds are in use (obviating the need to 

park the vehicle), these verifications can take several minutes to complete. There is insufficient 

manpower to conduct these detailed verifications on every vehicle/driver. 

Anticipated Benefits/Limitations of the Demonstration Project 

MTD and FMCSA inspectors saw potential value in the project as follows: 

• Assist with inspection selection decisions: The e-screening system could assist in making 

inspection selection decisions based on a range of data available in the screening 

database—data not typically available to officers except by pulling a vehicle out of the 

queue. 

• Increased productivity: By electronically distinguishing compliant and noncompliant 

vehicles, the e-screening system could focus limited enforcement resources on 

noncompliant vehicles and drivers, and vehicles/drivers about whom less is known 

(unenrolled vehicles/ drivers). 

MTD and FMCSA inspectors identified several limitations to the e-screening concept of 

operations, as outlined below: 

• Currency of CVSA trailer decal: Because trailers are not equipped with separate RFID 

transponders, the Santa Teresa E-Screening Demonstration Project was not able to 

electronically identify/enroll trailers and thus monitor the currency of their CVSA decals. 

17 
It was agreed the project and its potential benefits provide value in spite of this limitation, 

and that inspectors would operate the system understanding this limitation. 

• Limited insurance policies: Some Mexican vehicles operate on 24-hour or 48-hour 

insurance policies. It was agreed where the screening decision included a “fail” status on 

insurance, the system would also display a “48-hour policy” message to indicate to 

officers that the vehicle in question was operating under a limited-duration insurance 

policy. 

• Driver logs: The system was not designed to address verification related to driver hoursof-service. It was agreed currently, the only way to verify driver hours-of-service is 

through manual observation of the log books, and that the e-screening demonstration 

project would not change current processes as they relate to hours-of-service 

enforcement. Officers/inspectors could still observe vehicles/drivers as they approach the 

stop sign and reader at the Santa Teresa Port, and could still converse with drivers to 

make an inspection selection decision, regardless of the e-screening decision. The escreening results would provide a more informed basis on which to make the inspection 

selection decision. 

3.2.2.3 Results of Baseline Observations/“Staged” Events 

Table 2 below details the findings of the baseline evaluation observation/staged events conducted 

on-site over a six-hour period on February 27, 2007. These observations/events established a 

series of benchmarks against which to evaluate the findings of the demonstration test. 

Table 2. Baseline Evaluation Findings 

Criteria Measure Comments 

Average daily trip volume 120–140 trips/day 

Average full 

safety/compliance checks 

per month 

237/month Based on number of Level 1 inspections 

conducted 

 January–March 2007 

Observations indicate that generally, a full 

compliance check is conducted for all 

elements included in e-screening verification 

only when officers are conducting an 

inspection 

Time required to 

manually verify all factors 

considered by escreening system 

15 minutes Requires parking vehicle, bringing driver and 

paperwork into office, querying multiple 

databases to verify information on paper 

forms as well as Federal operating authority; 

CDL status 

Vehicle processing 92 trucks processed in 

six-hour period 

18 pulled out of queue for 

further inspection 

Five found fully compliant 

13 found out-of-service 

(OOS) or violation 

Average of 27 minutes out of productive 

service for fully compliant trucks 

Average of 1.8 minutes lost to 

inspection/review of compliant vehicles for all 

trucks in queue 

18 
3.2.3 Demonstration Test Evaluation 

Fourteen carriers participated in the initial 10-week demonstration. Five drivers and 100 trucks 

were enrolled in the system. More than 5,500 transponder reads were recorded during the 10-

week period, of which more than 2,400 were reads of enrolled transponders. 

Results of the Phase 1 demonstration test indicate that the technology performed reliably and as 

expected, and the demonstration met the objectives defined in five of the six hypotheses, with 

results as related to the final hypothesis inconclusive. Table 3 summarizes the hypotheses and 

discusses related results. 

Table 3. Hypotheses Underlying Demonstration and Related Results 

Premise Tested in 

Demonstration Project Results 

RFID Technology can be used 

to reliably identify 

vehicles/drivers at ramp 

speeds 

The RFID readers and tags used in the demonstration project 

performed reliably. All transponder-equipped vehicles observed 

during a 6-hour evaluation period in March registered a read, and 

each observed read matched the corresponding transponder number, 

which was also captured with a handheld reader and verified against 

the reader on the screening system for that truck. 

In-station e-screening can 

reduce the time required to 

process vehicles for inspection 

selection, resulting in 

productivity improvements for 

both inspectors and carriers 

Full electronic verification of enrolled vehicles was routinely 

accomplished via the e-screening system in less than one (1) second, 

vs. 15 minutes required to manually verify all items checked by the 

screening system. The 2,414 enrolled reads—each results in a “pass” 

or “fail” decision for inspection selection—represents a savings of 

more than 600 hours in officer time. 

In-station e-screening has the 

potential to increase the 

number of vehicles/drivers 

routinely subject to full 

compliance verification. 

The Baseline evaluation showed that, on average, 237 vehicles per 

month were subject to full safety/ compliance verifications of all 

criteria included in the e-screening system. Subsequent to escreening system implementation, the number of vehicles screened 

for full compliance was increased to an average of 965 vehicles per 

month, an increase of 307%. The number of vehicles screened 

electronically at Santa Teresa was limited by the number of vehicles 

enrolled. If all transponder-equipped vehicles through the port had 

been enrolled, the increase in safety/compliance verifications would 

have been over 800%. There is potential for significantly higher 

increases at higher-volume facilities. The theoretical capacity of the escreening system is approximately 9,600 vehicles per lane per eighthour shift [assuming three (3) seconds processing time per vehicle], 

compared with a potential for one officer to manually verify 

safety/compliance on only 32 vehicles in an eight-hour shift 

(assuming 15 minutes per full manual compliance verification). 

In-station e-screening focuses 

limited enforcement resources 

on noncompliant/ unknown 

vehicles/drivers 

The system identified compliant/noncompliant vehicles more than 

99% of the time, enabling officers to focus their efforts on vehicles 

with “fail” reads and those that are not transponder-equipped. 

19 
Premise Tested in Results Demonstration Project 

In-station e-screening has the 

potential to reduce processing 

time for compliant vehicles 

On-site observations over a six-hour time period indicated that each 

vehicle pulled out of the queue for credentials verification, Level 1 

inspection, and/or other form of review and found to be fully compliant 

upon completion of the review, spent an average of 27 minutes in the 

review/inspection process. Average time saved per vehicle when 

distributed among all vehicles in the queue was 1.8 minutes per 

vehicle. 

In-station e-screening provides 

the potential to increase 

capacity/throughput 

The premise here was that physical lane capacity and inspection 

parking area capacity would be increased by officers’ ability to identify 

and clear compliant vehicles more quickly. In theory, this would result 

in parking fewer compliant vehicles for inspection, and would increase 

hourly throughput, since less time would be spent in queue by all 

vehicles. 

However, the volumes at Santa Teresa were too low to draw 

significant conclusions—positive or negative —regarding this 

hypothesis. The project team will be considering other means to 

evaluate this premise within the limitations of the Santa Teresa site as 

the project moves forward. 

The tables below summarize transaction statistics downloaded from the e-screening system from 

the period March 5–May 12, 2007, (see Appendix A for full detail on daily transaction statistics). 

The Santa Teresa facilities’ operating hours mirror those of Mexican and US Customs, so the 

port is closed on Sundays (which explains the “missing days” in the transaction statistics 

provided in Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6). 

The text following each table describes the significance of the data included in the table. Data in 

the tables relate to vehicle transponders only. Because only five drivers were enrolled in the 

system, the project team did not attempt to analyze/draw conclusions relating to driver tag reads. 

Table 4. Enrolled Reads During Test Period 

Category March 5–31 April 2–28 April 30–May 12 Total 

Total Transponders Read 2,312 2,037 1,156 5,505 

Enrolled Reads 722 1,050 642 2,414 

Enrolled Reads as % of 

Total Reads 

31% 52% 56% 44% 

The eGo 2101 reader reads all vehicle-mounted transponders, regardless of whether or not they 

are enrolled in the system, and the screening system logs each read. If a vehicle has both a FAST 

tag and a user fee tag on the windshield, the reader reads both tags and the system logs each tag 

read. Only one tag per vehicle was enrolled, so where a vehicle had both a FAST and a user fee 

transponder, the number of reads exceeds the number of truck trips through the station. The 

system recorded a total of 5,505 transponder reads during the period March 5–May 12, 2007. 

20 
FMCSA and MTD staff began enrolling vehicles and drivers in the system on March 5, 2007. 

April 18, 2007 was the last date on which any vehicles were enrolled. The percentage of enrolled 

reads thus increases throughout March and April. By May, 56 percent of all transponders being 

read were enrolled in the system. 

During enrollment process training on March 5, ATRI evaluation staff conducted limited 

observations over a six-hour period to verify that windshield tags on transponder-equipped 

vehicles were being read by the system, and were being read accurately. Results of those 

observations indicated that all tags were read, and that each read matched the transponder 

number of the tag on the windshield. To accomplish the match testing, windshield tags were read 

with a handheld reader, and the tag ID displayed on the handheld was matched against the tag ID 

displayed in the e-screening system. In all 30 cases in which this random check was done, the tag 

IDs matched. 

Table 5. Pass Reads During Test Period 

Category March 5–31 April 3–28 April 30–May 12 Total 

Pass Reads 517 401 114 1,032 

Pass Rate 72% 38% 18% 43% 

“Pass” reads indicate enrolled reads which result in a “pass” e-screening decision, where the 

screening algorithm shows the vehicle to be compliant on all safety/compliance criteria evaluated 

by the e-screening system. In March, the “pass” rate exceeded 70 percent. By May, the “pass” 

rate—the percentage of enrolled vehicles that complied with all screening criteria—was reduced 

to 18 percent. 

This drop in “pass” rate is attributable to several factors: 

• CVSA decals are valid for a limited period of time and the vehicle requires a new Level 1 

inspection upon decal expiration. 

• Mexican vehicle registrations expire in April (insurance policies generally run 

concurrently with the registration period). 

• Lack of screening system interface to centralized data systems affects data currency. 

• There are limitations inherent in a manual on-site enrollment and update process. 

Each of these issues is discussed in greater detail following Table 6. 

21 
Table 6. Fail Reads During Test Period and Reason for Failure 

Category March 5–31 April 3–28 April 30– 

May 12 Total 

Fail Reads 205 649 528 1,382 

Expired CVSA decal as 

% of all enrolled reads 

22% 50% 75% 48% 

Expired registration as % 

of all enrolled reads 

17% 23% 22% 21% 

Expired insurance as % 

of all enrolled reads 

1% 21% 23% 16% 

Invalid Federal operating 

authority as % of all 

enrolled reads 

0% 0% 0% 0% 

Table 6 above shows the number of “fail” reads on a monthly basis and the reasons for failure. A 

“fail” read indicates a read which results in a “fail” e-screening decision, where the screening 

algorithm finds the vehicle to be noncompliant for one or more safety/compliance criteria 

evaluated by the e-screening system. (Note: vehicles may fail on more than one factor; as a 

result, failures as percentage of enrolled reads, plus pass rate, will not add up to 100 percent.) 

Lack of currency of the Level 1 inspection was the factor most frequently responsible for a “fail” 

screening decision. With the beginning of each new month, approximately one-third of the 

CVSA decals expire (decals are valid through the end of the second month following the month 

of issue. For example, a decal issued any time in January is valid through the end of March). 

Table 6 above shows a significant increase in “fail” decisions based on CVSA decal expiration 

with each new month. Appendix A shows daily transaction statistics throughout the 

demonstration period. Daily pass/fail counts from the end of March through early April show a 

very clear spike in “fail” decisions related to CVSA decal expiration during this time period, 

indicating that the vehicle’s CVSA decal is expired, and a new Level 1 inspection is required. 

“Fail” reads related to CVSA decal expiration provided an important indicator to officers 

regarding which vehicles were due for a new Level 1 inspection. 

Because the project was originally designed as a six-week limited demonstration, officers did not 

necessarily update the database each time a new CVSA decal was issued. As a result, the 

enrollment data upon which the screening decisions were made remained static. While many of 

the “fail” reads related to CVSA decal expiration from March to April were valid “fails,” it is 

likely that the continued spike in CVSA “fail” reads from April to May was related at least in 

part to the fact that the enrollment database was not being manually updated as new Level 1 

inspections were completed in April; hence, the data on which the e-screening decision was 

being made were no longer current. The demonstration period was extended to a 10-week period 

at the urging of both the participating motor carriers and the MTD. 

Mexican vehicle registrations expire in April. Insurance, if an annual policy, typically runs 

concurrently with the registration, so the insurance and registration expiration failures also 

22 
spiked in April and remained high in May (because the screening database was not being 

updated by centralized databases to reflect registration renewals). 

Some insurance “fail” reads are the related to the fact that some drayage carriers operate on 48-

hour policies. The insurance effective dates were entered upon enrollment, but within two to 

three days, the insurance which was in effect at the time of enrollment has already expired. The 

screening system displays a “48-hour insurance policy” message with these “fail” reads to 

provide officers additional information that can be used in deciding how to process the vehicle. 

For example, if there are three vehicles in the queue, and only two parking spaces left, if one 

reads “fail—CVSA decal,” the second reads “fail—Federal operating authority,” and the third 

reads “fail—48-hour insurance policy,” the officer is likely to focus on parking the first two, and 

dealing with the “48-hour insurance” warning the next time that vehicle comes through. 

3.2.4 Qualitative Response to the Demonstration Project 

3.2.4.1 Carrier Response to Demonstration Project 

Three participating carriers were selected for pre- and post-test interviews. The pre-test 

interviews were conducted from February through early March 2007, and are summarized in 

section 3.2.2. The post-test interview instruments were disseminated to the three participating 

carriers. However, due to scheduling challenges with the carriers, the post-test interview 

instruments could not be collected by the project team as of the date of this report—May2007. 

(See Appendix B for combined carrier baseline/post-demonstration evaluation forms.) Informal 

discussions with participating carriers indicate the following qualitative response to the project: 

• The enrollment process, within the context of the Santa Teresa demonstration, was not 

viewed as overly cumbersome. 

• Carriers agreed that interface with centralized data sources to maintain currency of the 

screening database would improve screening system performance (and better meet their 

expectations of reduced clearance time for safe and compliant vehicles). 

• Carriers are interested in continuing participation in the project, and see potential for 

increased value, particularly if enhancements as described in section 4 are implemented. 

• Some carriers continue to be interested in issues related to trailer compliance and 

assignment of violations/citations to trailer owners as an incentive to increase compliance 

with inspection requirements among owners of trailers. 

Any additional findings resulting from completion of the carrier post-test evaluation forms will 

be provided to FMCSA as an addendum to this document. 

3.2.4.2 Enforcement Agency Response to Project 

Because the project was initially designed as a limited six-week demonstration, the FMCSA 

Santa Teresa Supervisor assigned two specific officers to the system. These officers enrolled 

vehicles and monitored the system: One officer inside relayed the screening results to the officer 

outside, who then waved “passed” vehicles through, and parked “failed” vehicles for further 

inspection. 

23 
24 

During the enrollment process, MTD and FMCSA identified several enrollment process 

improvements which were immediately coded into the system (system auto-population of 

registration and CVSA decal and insurance expire dates, for example, based on issue-date data 

entered by the officer). These minor system enhancements saved time in the enrollment process 

and improved data accuracy. 

Based on their operational experience using the system, MTD officers and FMCSA inspectors 

support the project and its continuation, with some enhancements to address operational 

limitations, described in section 4.0. 
4. LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The project team and project partners recognize a number of limitations inherent in the initial 

demonstration project. Some of these limitations were clearly understood prior to initiation of the 

demonstration test, but were accommodated, to enable the test to move forward within the 

limited timeframe and budget available. Other limitations became known/better understood 

through conduct of the demonstration test. Section 4.1 outlines known limitations; section 4.2 

describes proposed ways to address and overcome limitations in subsequent e-screening efforts. 

4.1 KNOWN LIMITATIONS OF THE SANTA TERESA RFID E-SCREENING 

DEMONSTRATION PILOT AND RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS 

Two categories of limitations are outlined below. The first involves operational limitations 

within the limited Santa Teresa deployment context. These are limitations which can be 

addressed with relatively minor modifications to the existing e-screening software and interfaces 

with display devices at the Santa Teresa site, as described in section 4.1.1. Recommended 

enhancements are discussed in section 4.1.2. 

Other limitations involve factors which limit the e-screening system’s portability/applicability as 

a full-service e-screening solution, suitable for implementation/use at a broad range of Northern 

and Southern state and FMCSA inspection sites. These are described in section 4.1.3. Section 

4.1.4 describes the proposed high-level requirements to modify the software and interface it with 

centralized databases to address this larger set of limitations. 

4.1.1 Operational Limitations of the Deployment Within the Limited Santa Teresa 

Deployment Context 

Operational limitations of the deployment test as related to the limited Santa Teresa operating 

environment fall into three basic categories: 

• On-site enrollment and manual update of the enrollment process. 

• Need for display of screening results outside of the port office, where inspectors are 

stationed. 

• Routine update of the enrollment database from centralized sources, where available. 

Each of these factors is described in more detail below. 

On-Site Enrollment/Manual Update of Enrollment Database 

The Santa Teresa facility is a relatively-low-volume facility, with daily trip volumes averaging 

120–140 truck trips. The facility is typically staffed with three to four FMCSA inspectors and an 

FMCSA inspector supervisor, and one or two MTD officers. The same trucks, operating on a 

drayage basis, often travel through the facility several times a day. Queues are typically very 

short, on the order of two to three trucks. Often, there will be 2–3, even 5–10, minutes between 

trucks, and in these circumstances, there is no queue at all. 

25 
Even within this low-volume operational context, the on-site enrollment process is undesirable as 

a long-term solution. The 20–30 minutes required to enroll a driver and truck takes officers away 

from hands-on enforcement activities. That said, within the Santa Teresa operational context, onsite enrollment, if phased in over several weeks and confined to a limited-duration operational 

test, can be accommodated without significant adverse effects to enforcement operations. 

However, the manual update process as currently available is too cumbersome and needs to be 

improved, even for a limited 6–12-month continuation of the demonstration. Because the system 

was originally designed as a limited-duration six-week pilot, the screening software was not 

designed to accommodate routine updates to the enrollment database. Currently, officers must 

search through a list of transponder numbers to select the record they wish to modify, or key in 

the transponder ID number. This requires the officer to read the transponder with a handheld 

reader, bring the handheld inside and search for the corresponding number in the database (all 

the while holding down the display key on the handheld), or write the transponder ID number 

down outside, as the transponder ID is not on any of the vehicle/driver paperwork. It is a 

cumbersome process which serves to discourage update of enrollment records. Search 

capabilities are required to enable officers to key in a plate or CDL number to access the 

enrollment record they wish to update. 

Display of Screening Results Outside the Port Office 

For maximum efficiency, officers need to be stationed outside the port office. Typically, officers 

at Santa Teresa are inside only when they are using their computers to complete inquiries to 

centralized databases on a vehicle already pulled out of the queue for inspection or compliance 

check, or when they are data-entering an inspection report to ASPEN. Otherwise, they are 

outside, inspecting trucks, watching the queue, talking with drivers (as part of the inspection 

selection decision process), performing quick walk-arounds of trucks at the front of the queue, 

etc. 

For the initial six-week demonstration project, budget and time limitations prevented interface 

with a dynamic message sign (DMS) or red light/green light system to notify officers who were 

outside of the screening decision. While assigning one officer to monitor the ROC and to relay 

screening decisions to another officer outside via walkie-talkie was acceptable for a six-week 

proof-of-concept demonstration, it is certainly not a model that is feasible for even a limited 

6–12-month extension of the demonstration. The productivity savings made possible by the escreening system are offset by the need to assign an officer to monitor the screen. 

Need for Routine Update of the Enrollment Database from Centralized Sources 

The transaction statistics examined in section 3 clearly point up the limitations of manual, on-site 

enrollments to the screening database. While making the update process easier for officers to 

perform will help to ensure currency of data, it is preferable that, where data are accessible from 

centralized sources, the e-screening system be interfaced with these data sources to enable 

routine, automated update of these screening criteria. 

26 
4.1.2 Proposed Enhancements to the Santa Teresa Operational Deployment to Meet 

Short-Term Needs of a 6–12-Month Continued Deployment 

Implementation of the enhancements described below would provide greater value to MTD and 

FMCSA enforcement staff working out of the Santa Teresa facility, and would provide greater 

utility for carriers participating in the project: 

• The screening software should be modified to provide search capabilities to enable 

officers to easily locate a specific record for update. Search capabilities should include: 

– Ability to search by USDOT number (officer keys in USDOT number, system 

displays list of plates associated with that number; officer selects desired plate, 

system presents editable enrollment record). 

– Ability to search by carrier name (officer keys in first few letters of carrier name, 

system displays list of carrier names; officer selects desired carrier name, system 

displays list of plates associated with that USDOT number; officer selects desired 

plate, system presents editable enrollment record). 

– Ability to search by plate (officer keys in plate number; system presents editable 

enrollment record). 

• DMS should be installed at Santa Teresa and interfaced with the e-screening system. The 

DMS should display the screening results. The display could be simply red light/green 

light, could be used to direct the driver to park if the decision is a “fail,” or could be used 

to relay specific coded messages to the officers outside (indicating the nature of the “fail” 

decision, for example). Specifics of the message set would be defined through 

discussions with MTD and FMCSA port staff. 

• The e-screening system should be interfaced with handheld devices, enabling officers to 

view detailed screening results on the handhelds, update enrollment records from the 

handhelds, and make additional queries from the handhelds. 

– Handhelds are not in frequent use at Santa Teresa at present, as site communication 

capabilities are such that the devices are frequently dropped from the signal. 

Communications capabilities may need to be modified/enhanced to support use of 

handhelds at the site. 

• The e-screening system should be interfaced with centralized databases, which are the 

authoritative source for key screening criteria. Looking out 6–12 months, these interfaces 

could include the following: 

– Interface to CVIEW/SAFER for routine update of the Federal operating authority and 

insurance information. (The e-screening database is already interfaced with a CVIEW 

for weekly refresh of the Federal operating authority status, but these updates should 

be nightly or more frequent. The e-screening system should be modified to enable 

update of the insurance data through CVIEW/SAFER nightly. Note: License and 

insurance (L&I) does not include insurance information on 24- or 48-hour policies, so 

this enhancement will not address issues related to short-term insurance policies) 

27 
– Interface with MCMIS for routine update of the date of issue for the latest CVSA 

decal (or web service interface with the query central (QC) query to MCMIS for 

CVSA decal issue date) 

– Interface with LIFIS for routine update of the Mexican CDL status, class and MXonly restriction (or web service interface with the QC query to LIFIS) 

At present, there does not appear to be a centralized data source accessible to FMCSA which can 

be used for updates of the Mexican vehicle registration data. 

4.1.3 Known Limitations of the Operational Concept for “Full-Service” E-Screening 

Solutions 

Operational limitations of the deployment test as related to its applicability for a “full-service” escreening solution can be categorized as follows: 

• On-site enrollment and manual update of the enrollment process. 

• Need for display of screening results outside the port office, where inspectors are 

stationed. 

• Data currency. 

• Trailer identification and verification of the currency of the trailer’s CVSA decal. 

• Driver identification and verification. 

Each of these factors is described in more detail below. 

On-site Enrollment/Manual Update of Enrollment Database 

On-site enrollment is time-consuming, a fact which potentially limits wide deployment, 

particularly when considering application in large, high-volume facilities. Whereas Santa Teresa 

sees 120–140 trucks trips on a daily basis, facilities such as Nogales, Otay Mesa, El Paso, and 

Laredo see 1,000–1,500 trips daily. Enrollment of 1,500 trucks would require more than 4.5 

man-months to complete. On-site enrollment is not feasible at these high-volume sites. 

Nor is manual update of an enrollment database feasible in a high-volume environment. Highvolume locations are processing vehicles in multiple lanes every few seconds. Officers simply do 

not have sufficient time to examine the paperwork of a truck in the lane and to update enrollment 

data via a handheld before looking at the next truck in the queue, without significant adverse 

impact on overall processing time. 

Display of Screening Results Outside the Port Office 

For maximum efficiency, officers at any facility need to be stationed outside the port office when 

they are processing vehicles through the queue. Display of the screening decision at each lane 

would be required for a full-service solution. 

28 
Data Currency 

Because of the added complexity/operational limitations associated with manual on-site updates 

of an enrollment database at a high-volume facility, routine update of the screening database 

from centralized sources to ensure data currency becomes even more important for a “fullservice” solution. 

Trailer Identification and Verification of the Currency of the Trailer’s CVSA Decal 

At Southern border locations, both the truck and the trailer are required to display current CVSA 

decals. In all commercial vehicle (CV) operations, but particularly in drayage operations which 

are very common on the Southern border, the trailer is not “tied” to the truck. Each time a power 

unit comes through a Southern land port, it may be hauling a different trailer. Trailers are not 

equipped with separate RFID tags. Within the current Santa Teresa demonstration project 

parameters, there is no way to electronically identify the trailer, and as a result, no way to 

electronically verify the currency of the trailer’s CVSA decal. 

Driver Identification and Verification 

Driver identification/verification is not fully addressed by the initial Santa Teresa operational 

concept. Drivers of carriers participating in the FAST program tend to have driver ID cards. 

Only a small percentage of drivers participating only in the user fee transponder program (at 

least among carriers enrolled in the Santa Teresa demonstration project) had CBP-issued driver 

ID cards. 

The read rate for windshield-mounted RFID tags exceeds 99 percent. The read rate for driver ID 

tags is variable, based on how a particular driver is physically holding the card and the angle at 

which he/she presents it to the reader. 

Provision for Interface to Other Devices at State/FMCSA Border Facilities 

A full-service e-screening system would need to accommodate results of “reads” from other 

screening devices already in use at a variety of border crossing facilities. These might include 

weigh-in-motion devices; radiation detection systems; infrared scanners used in brake-systemproblem detection; and optical character recognition devices (OCRs) used to read plates and 

USDOT numbers to assist in the identification of non-transponder-equipped trucks and others. 

4.1.4 Proposed Enhancements to the Santa Teresa Operational Concept to Address 

“Full-Service” E-Screening Needs 

The Santa Teresa Project Team has identified a variety of potential means to address the 

limitations of the Phase I demonstration operational concept as outlined below. Central to these 

solutions is the potential to access/interface with the subset of the ITDS data set currently being 

shared by CBP with FMCSA. 

Section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 and subsequent implementing regulations require motor 

carriers and other eligible parties to file an electronic manifest with CBP prior to entering the 

United States through land ports. This requirement is being implemented in phases by groups of 

ports. To date, the requirement has been enacted for vehicles entering the United States through 

land ports in Washington, Arizona, California, Texas, and New Mexico, and some ports in North 

29 
Dakota. Effective May 24, 2007, CVs entering through land ports in Michigan and New York 

were required to file e-manifests prior to crossing into the United States. Remaining land ports in 

North Dakota and other Northern Border States are being phased in according to a schedule to be 

developed by CBP. 

The e-manifest is filed via the CBP ACE Truck Manifest System at least 24 hours before a trip. 

Data from the manifest are “packaged” by CBP’s ITDS and electronically transmitted to each of 

the Federal government agencies which require documentation for clearing or licensing cargo. 

Packets of data are sent to FMCSA, the Department of Agriculture, and 20-odd other Federal 

agencies for electronic verification. The packets transmitted to each agency include only the data 

elements from the e-manifest for which that agency is the authoritative source, and/or data which 

the agency requires to meet or implement a statutory requirement of the agency. Each agency 

electronically verifies the data for which it is the authoritative source, flags data where there is an 

issue, and transmits the data packet back to CBP. 

FMCSA receives a data packet related to truck, trailer, and driver from each e-manifest filed. 

FMCSA electronically verifies the data transmitted, and then transmits the verified data set (with 

check flags to indicate potential compliance issues) back to CBP. 

The Santa Teresa Project Team has identified a need to interface the subset of ITDS data verified 

by FMCSA with e-screening systems at Southern and Northern state IBCs. Access to the ITDS 

data subset would address many of the limitations described above in Section 4.1.3, including the 

following: 

On-Site Enrollment 

Interface with the ITDS data set would eliminate the need for on-site enrollment. The RFID tag 

number on the power unit is linked via the ITDS data set to key vehicle/carrier identifiers such as 

VIN, plate number, and carrier USDOT number. Access to these identifiers provides the “keys” 

required to access attribute information in centralized Federal (and state) systems to 

electronically establish and verify the information currently established/verified via the 

enrollment process, including: 

• Date of issue of CVSA decal associated with power unit (available via MCMIS). 

• Insurance status/coverage (available via L&I). 

• Carrier Federal operating authority status (available via MCMIS/SAFER). 

• Carrier OOS status (available via MCMIS/SAFER). 

• Carrier safety status (available via MCMIS/SAFER). 

• CDL status and endorsements (available via LIFIS). 

• Date of issue of CVSA decal associated with trailer (available via MCMIS). 

Two of the e-screening criteria included in the current Santa Teresa e-screening algorithm— 

insurance status/coverage, and vehicle registration status—are not fully addressed by this 

proposed model. Limited-duration insurance coverage information (policies in effect for only 24 

30 
or 48 hours) is not included in the L&I database. Mexican vehicle registration status is not 

currently interfaced with Federal or state systems. 

Trailer Identification and Verification of the Currency of the Trailer’s CVSA Decal and 

Driver Identification/Verification 

The ITDS data set ties the power unit, trailer, and driver together on a per-trip basis. If the power 

unit can be identified via the RFID tag, the driver and trailer can be identified and screened 

electronically, even in the absence of driver and trailer RFID tags. One of the CBP verification 

steps is to ensure that the driver, power unit, and trailer are the same entities as those shown on 

the e-manifest. If any of the three is different, CBP notes that difference in the “arrival data set” 

and transmits that arrival data set back to FMCSA. By linking the e-screening system to the 

arrival data set information, state and FMCSA inspectors can be assured that when the driver, 

trailer, and power unit reach the secondary facility, the three entities in front of them are the 

same three entities linked in the ITDS data set. 

Data Currency 

The QC web service queries developed by FMCSA for ITDS data set verification perform 

queries to the authoritative source (MCMIS, L&I, LIFIS, etc.) to verify the following criteria: 

• Date of issue of the CVSA decal associated with power unit (available via MCMIS). 

• Insurance status/coverage (available via L&I). 

• Carrier Federal operating authority status (available via MCMIS/SAFER). 

• Carrier OOS status (available via MCMIS/SAFER). 

• Carrier safety status (available via MCMIS/SAFER). 

• CDL status and endorsements (available via LIFIS). 

The e-screening system could be interfaced with these web service query capabilities and 

reformat the response to the “pass/fail” type of response that the system currently provides, 

ensuring data currency in screening decisions. 

Currency of the CVSA decal associated with the trailer can be addressed by developing an 

additional web service query similar to the query for power unit CVSA decal information. 

Two of the requirements—insurance status/coverage and vehicle registration status—require 

further investigation to identify a universal/reliable means of electronic update. Limited-duration 

insurance coverage information (policies in effect for only 24 or 48 hours) is not included in the 

L&I database. Mexican vehicle registration status is not currently interfaced with Federal or state 

systems. 

Other limitations could be addressed in ways similar to those proposed for the Santa Teresa 

limited-duration extension. 

31 
32 

Display of Screening Results Outside the Port Office/Provision for Interface with Other 

Devices 

• The e-screening system would require an interface with DMS in each lane where the 

system is installed. The DMS should display the screening results. The display could be 

simply red light/green light, could be used to direct the driver to park if the decision is a 

“fail,” or could be used to relay specific coded messages to the officers outside 

(indicating the nature of the “fail” decision, for example). 

• The e-screening system should be interfaced with handheld devices, enabling officers to 

view detailed screening results on the handhelds, and to make additional queries from the 

handhelds. 

• Any subsequent design/development efforts should make provision for interface with 

other screening devices in use/widely contemplated for use in Southern and Northern 

border-crossing environments. 
APPENDIX A—DAILY E-SCREENING SYSTEM 

TRANSACTION STATISTICS 

MARCH 5–MAY 12, 2007 

VEHICLE/DRIVER TRANSPONDERS READ: MARCH 5–MARCH 17, 2007 

Figure 5. Transponders Read 3/05–3/17—Bar Graph 

Table 7. Transponders Read 3/05–3/07—Data Table 

Enrollment 

Status 

3/5/2007 3/6/2007 3/7/2007 3/8/2007 3/9/2007 

3/10/2007 3/12/2007 3/13/2007 3/14/2007 3/15/2007 3/16/2007 3/17/2007 

Total for 

Period 

Enrolled 9 23 29 22 21 6 14 38 35 41 36 15 289 

Not Enrolled 65 80 70 82 84 28 95 83 76 69 74 36 842 

Total 74 103 99 104 105 34 109 121 111 110 110 51 1,131

33 
VEHICLE/DRIVER TRANSPONDERS READ: MARCH 19–MARCH 31, 2007 

Figure 6. Transponders Read 3/19–3/31—Bar Graph 

Table 8. Transponders Read 3/19–3/31—Data Table 

Enrollment 

Status 

3/19/2007 3/20/2007 3/21/2007 3/22/2007 3/23/2007 3/26/2007 3/27/2007 3/28/2007 3/29/2007 3/30/2007 3/31/2007 

Total for 

Period 

Enrolled 23 37 39 47 48 42 46 46 44 46 15 433 

Not Enrolled 36 54 73 78 80 68 83 79 83 88 26 748 

Total 59 91 112 125 128 110 129 125 127 124 41 1,181 

34 
VEHICLE/DRIVER TRANSPONDERS READ: APRIL 2–APRIL 14, 2007 

Figure 7. Transponders Read 4/02–4/14—Bar Graph 

Table 9. Transponders Read 4/02–4/14—Data Table 

Enrollment 

Status 

4/2/2007 4/3/2007 4/4/2007 4/5/2007 4/7/2007 4/9/2007 

4/10/2007 4/11/2007 4/12/2007 4/13/2007 4/14/2007 

Total for 

Period 

Enrolled 47 65 51 31 12 43 60 66 71 59 28 533 

Not Enrolled 102 56 59 35 13 73 53 51 60 50 22 574 

Total 149 121 110 66 25 116 113 117 131 109 50 1,107 

35 
VEHICLE/DRIVER TRANSPONDERS READ: APRIL 16–APRIL 28, 2007 

Figure 8. Transponders Read 4/16–4/28—Bar Graph 

Table 10. Transponders Read 4/16–4/28—Data Table 

Enrollment 

Status 

4/16/2007 4/17/2007 4/18/2007 4/19/2007 4/20/2007 4/24/2007 4/25/2007 4/26/2007 4/27/2007 4/28/2007 

Total for 

Period 

Enrolled 66 62 68 46 17 64 61 41 62 30 517 

Not Enrolled 56 50 44 54 7 55 49 35 50 13 413 

Total 122 112 112 100 24 119 110 76 112 43 930 

36 
VEHICLE/DRIVER TRANSPONDERS READ: APRIL 30–MAY 12, 2007 

Figure 9. Transponders Read 4/30–5/12—Bar Graph 

Table 11. Transponders Read 4/30–5/12—Data Table 

Enrollment 

Status 

4/30/2007 

5/1/2007 5/2/2007 5/3/2007 5/4/2007 5/5/2007 5/7/2007 5/8/2007 5/9/2007 

5/10/2007 5/11/2007 5/12/2007 

Total for 

Period 

Enrolled 48 34 56 58 69 29 59 65 65 61 66 32 642 

Not Enrolled 44 28 53 59 51 13 57 60 58 40 39 12 514 

Total 92 62 109 117 120 42 116 125 123 101 105 44 1,156

37 
TRANSPONDER SCREENING RESULTS MARCH 5–MARCH 17, 2007 

Figure 10. Transponder Screening Results 3/05–3/17—Pie Chart 

38 
Figure 11. Transponder Screening Results 3/05–3/17—Bar Graph 

Table 12. Transponder Screening Results 3/05–3/17—Data Table 

Result 

3/5/2007 3/6/2007 3/7/2007 3/8/2007 3/9/2007 

3/10/2007 3/12/2007 3/13/2007 3/14/2007 3/15/2007 3/16/2007 3/17/2007 

Total for 

Period 

Pass 11 25 27 21 20 5 14 26 24 30 25 10 238 

CVSA Sticker 

Expired 0 1 4 3 4 1 2 8 9 7 11 2 52 

Registration 

Expired 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 3 5 4 4 21 

Insurance 

Issue Date 

Invalid 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 

Insurance 

Expired 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 

Total 11 26 31 25 24 6 16 41 36 43 40 16 315 

39 
TRANSPONDER SCREENING RESULTS MARCH 19–MARCH 31, 2007 

Figure 12. Transponder Screening Results 3/19–3/31—Pie Chart 

40 
Figure 13. Transponder Screening Results 3/19–3/31—Bar Graph 

Table 13. Transponder Screening Results 3/19–3/31—Data Table 

Result 

3/19/2007 3/20/2007 3/21/2007 3/22/2007 3/23/2007 3/26/2007 3/27/2007 3/28/2007 3/29/2007 3/30/2007 3/31/2007 

Total for 

Period 

Pass 17 24 25 30 29 23 28 31 29 34 9 279 

CVSA 

Sticker 

Expired 

6 10 11 13 13 12 10 9 13 10 3 110 

Registration 

Expired 4 8 12 13 12 12 11 10 9 9 3 103 

Insurance 

Issue Date 

Invalid 

1 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 7 

Insurance 

Expired 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 8 

Total 28 42 48 57 55 49 53 52 55 54 16 509 

41 
TRANSPONDER SCREENING RESULTS APRIL 2–APRIL 14, 2007 

Figure 14. Transponder Screening Results 4/02–4/14—Pie Chart 

42 
Figure 15. Transponder Screening Results 4/02–4/14—Bar Graph 

Table 14. Transponder Screening Results 4/02–4/14—Data Table 

Result 

4/2/2007 4/3/2007 4/4/2007 4/5/2007 4/7/2007 4/9/2007 

4/10/2007 4/11/2007 4/12/2007 4/13/2007 4/14/2007 

Total for 

Period 

Pass 20 24 27 10 7 16 22 28 29 21 8 212 

CVSA 

Sticker 

Expired 

27 32 22 18 4 23 29 31 33 32 15 266 

Registration 

Expired 10 12 11 5 0 10 18 17 18 17 4 122 

Insurance 

Issue Date 

Invalid 

0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 

Insurance 

Expired 9 19 7 8 2 9 12 12 10 7 10 105 

Total 66 88 67 43 13 58 81 89 90 77 38 710 

43 
TRANSPONDER SCREENING RESULTS APRIL 16–APRIL 28, 2007 

Figure 16. Transponder Screening Results 4/16–4/28—Pie Chart 

44 
Figure 17. Transponder Screening Results 4/16–4/28—Bar Graph 

Table 15. Transponder Screening Results 4/16–4/28—Data Table 

Result 

4/16/2007 4/17/2007 4/18/2007 4/19/2007 4/20/2007 4/24/2007 4/25/2007 4/26/2007 4/27/2007 4/28/2007 

Total for 

Period 

Pass 22 24 25 14 9 25 24 15 21 10 189 

CVSA Sticker 

Expired 35 30 30 24 7 32 29 21 31 16 257 

Registration 

Expired 13 12 17 9 3 14 15 13 16 7 119 

Insurance 

Issue Date 

Invalid 

0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 7 

Insurance 

Expired 16 14 14 13 9 13 11 8 12 8 113 

Total 86 81 88 60 21 85 79 57 84 42 685 

45 
TRANSPONDER SCREENING RESULTS APRIL 30–MAY 12, 2007 

Figure 18. Transponder Screening Results 4/30–5/12—Pie Chart 

46 
47 

Figure 19. Transponder Screening Results 4/30–5/12—Bar Graph 

Table 16. Transponder Screening Results 4/30–5/12—Data Table 

Result 

4/30/2007 

5/1/2007 5/2/2007 5/3/2007 5/4/2007 5/5/2007 5/7/2007 5/8/2007 5/9/2007 

5/10/2007 5/11/2007 5/12/2007 

Total

Pass 16 5 10 5 12 4 13 11 11 11 12 4 114 

CVSA 

Sticker 

Expired 

23 27 41 50 51 23 43 51 50 46 50 28 483 

Registration 

Expired 15 2 13 13 18 7 12 16 14 15 12 4 141 

Registration 

Issue Date 

Invalid 

0 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 3 15 

Insurance 

Expired 12 8 13 14 16 8 13 15 12 16 14 8 149 

Total 66 43 78 84 99 43 82 94 88 88 90 47 902 

APPENDIX B—SANTA TERESA CARRIER EVALUATION FORM 

(COMPILATION OF BASELINE AND POST-DEMONSTRATION 

TEST FORMS) 

Carrier Evaluation—Santa Teresa RFID E-Screening Project 

The purpose of the carrier evaluation is to understand and characterize the types of operations 

participating in the Santa Teresa RFID E-Screening Project, the expectations of carriers 

participating in the pilot, and participating carriers’ perceptions of the project—how it impacted 

their operations, and suggestions for improvements, changes, and other factors to consider as the 

project moves into its next phase. 

Responses from all participating carriers will be aggregated by UNM and Parker Young, the 

project’s Evaluation Team. Individual responses will not be shared with MTD, FMCSA, or any 

other entities outside of the Evaluation Team. Comments received from participating carriers 

will not be associated with individual carriers in any written reports, presentations, or other 

documents resulting from the project. 

Date Completed: 

Question Response 

General/Operational Questions 

1 Carrier name 

2 Carrier contact name 

3 Contact phone number 

4 Total number trucks operated by 

carrier 

5 Total number drivers employed by 

carrier 

6 Number trucks equipped with User 

Fee RFID tags 

7 Number trucks equipped with FAST 

RFID tags 

8 Number Drivers with CBP-issued 

driver ID tag 

49 
 Question Response 

9 Number trucks routinely crossing at 

Santa Teresa IBC (as opposed to 

BOTA Bridge or other IBC) 

10 Do you typically haul trailers 

owned/leased by your company, or 

trailers owned / leased by others? 

Baseline Evaluation 

11 Reasons why you use Santa Teresa 

rather than other crossing(s)? 

12 From your perspective, thinking 

about operations prior to 

implementation of the Santa Teresa 

RFID E-Screening Project, what 

works well in terms of vehicle 

processing at the state Santa Teresa 

Port? 

13 From your perspective, thinking 

about operations prior to 

implementation of the Santa Teresa 

RFID E-Screening Project, what 

does not work so well in terms of 

vehicle processing at the state Santa 

Teresa Port; what could be 

improved? 

14 Why did you choose to participate in 

the Santa Teresa RFID E-Screening 

Project? 

15 What benefit did you hope to see 

from your participation in the 

project? 

50 
51 

 Question Response 

Post-implementation Evaluation 

16 What impact did implementation of 

the RFID E-Screening Project have 

on your operations? 

17 Did it affect your decisions 

regarding use of the Santa Teresa 

crossing vs. another crossing? 

18 Did you or your drivers notice any 

time savings related to project 

participation/the e-screening 

process? 

19 Did you or your drivers feel as if 

your vehicles were stopped more 

frequently for inspection, stopped 

less frequently, or did you not notice 

a change? 

20 In what ways did the RFID EScreening Project meet your 

expectations? 

21 In what ways did the project exceed 

your expectations? 

22 In what ways did the project fall 

short of your expectations? 

23 What suggestions do you have for 

improving the e-screening process as 

the project moves forward? 

24 Any other input you would like to 

provide? 

25 Any questions you have about the 

project?