More Logistics and Less CO2.
   Lufthansa Cargo is halfway to our target of reducing specific carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
   Thanks to our modern aircraft, high capacity utilization, and close cooperation with our customers we are certain we will make it all the way to our goal.

—Dr. Karl-Rudolf Rupprecht, board member Operations, Lufthansa Cargo’s 4th Environmental Conference at Frankfurt’s Städel Museum this week.

Open and even critical debates at our conference will have an impact on the whole industry and underline that we take our responsibilities seriously.
   ‘More Ideas for Less Emissions’ special awards are presented at the event to customers and staff members who have shown their outstanding commitment to environmental protection.

— Bettina Jansen, head of Environmental Management, Lufthansa Cargo.

     The Global Harmonized System (GHS) is maturing slowly but steadily and impacting the ways of international trade and commerce.
     First things first: While GHS is supposed to be a global application—harmonized in its reach between the nation states’ varying legislations—and provide an unique and systematic approach for manufacturers, transporters, distributors, retailers, sellers, buyers, and users of chemicals, there are still a number of issues.
     GHS is, in short, a spin-off of the UN Model Regulations, which in their current 19th edition forms the basis for the worldwide modal transport regulations, such as the IMDG code applicable to the transport of Dangerous Goods by sea or the ICAO Technical Instructions applicable to the transport of Dangerous Goods by Air.
     In the U.S., 49 CFR covering the transport of dangerous goods (or hazardous materials, as these are dubbed in the U.S.) and, to a degree, 40 CFR dealing with environmental matters have been harmonized with the UN Model Regulations and GHS so as to do away with trade barriers.
     The aim of GHS was to replace the differing classification and hazard communication or labeling standards applied by different countries by means of using consistent criteria for classification and hazard communication on a global level.
     The development of GHS kicked off during the UN Conference in Rio, driven by stakeholders such as the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) and the ILO (International Labor Organization).
     While certainly a main goal was to harmonize the hazard communication standards for chemicals on the user level, a second goal was to iron out differences between hazard communication requirements applicable to the transport of such chemicals and their use.
     For the U.S., the final rule mandating full GHS implementation into OSHA Standards was published on March 26, 2012. Full adoption of GHS standards by June 1st, 2015, is required for manufacturers and distributors of chemical products. Workers had to be trained before December 1st, 2013.
     For the European Community, the regulations covering GHS implementation were published on December 31st, 2008, and mandatory compliance for substance classification in accordance with GHS requirements was December 1st, 2010; although a grace period was provided for the classification of mixtures and solutions, which expires on June 1st, 2015.

     Something important to understand is that GHS deals with the hazards arising from a substance’s use, which is fundamentally different from hazards encountered in transportation. While most of the world differentiates between Transport regulations covering Dangerous Goods and OSHA regulations covering hazardous substances, in the U.S. this differentiation is made using the term hazardous materials and hazardous substances.
     Many issues pertaining to hazard communication by means of SDS (Safety Data Sheets) stem from misunderstandings of these terms; with very few exceptions, a substance meeting the classification criteria for a Dangerous Good will also be a hazardous substance, but one may not conclude that a product covered by hazardous substance labeling requirements is also a Dangerous Good.
     While both the U.S. and the EC adoption of the GHS saw distinct changes in the system of chemical’s classification, which posed considerable challenges for all stakeholders in the supply chain, currently 67 states have adopted the GHS system and more are to follow.
     The alignment of the GHS hazard communication standards with symbols used in transport for decades should, at least in theory, boost understanding of the particular hazards exhibited by a product and its use. However, the differing hazards encountered during transportation and during use of such products sometimes, in practice, result in a non-consistent approach:
     With GHS being a full-fledged international standard, modal regulations now call for observance of GHS labels to aid identification of potentially undeclared or misdeclared shipments of Dangerous Goods, particularly in air transport; but while certain household products may not be exactly healthy, unfit for ingestion, and thus bearing the skull-and-crossbones pictogram symbol, the classification criteria applied in transport have not necessarily been met.
     Something of particular interest for the U.S. market is the transition from the “MSDS” or “Material Safety Data Sheet” to the uniform “SDS” or “Safety Data Sheet” by means of the HCS 2012, covered by 29 CFR 1910.1200 and organized in 16 sections. One main benefit here is that this transition should do away with the considerable differences between the former US-MSDS and EC-SDS, easing the regulatory burden for manufacturers of chemicals who offer their products in multiple international markets. For the time being, however, compliance providers such as market-leader Labelmaster are doing good business with conversions from the old US-MSDS format to the GHS-SDS format.
     One issue not directly related to GHS always has been and still is the simple fact that a considerable percentage of people using SDS have never been properly trained in how to read and understand such a document. An SDS will usually list the ingredients of a product and identify the hazards for any given ingredient—thus, a flashpoint and boiling point in a range indicating a “flammable liquid” in transport (in other words, making this liquid a Dangerous Good when transported) refers to the flammability of the ingredient and not the end-product as such. Also, articles do not require SDS of any kind (batteries, fuel pumps, and other dangerous goods commonly incorporated into machinery or apparatus come to mind). While an air-conditioning unit might be accompanied by an SDS identifying, for example, a “UN 1028, Refrigerant gas R12” this classification actually pertains to the refrigerant gas contained in the air conditioning unit. The unit as such—the “article”, in transport-speak—would be identified as “UN 2857, Refrigerating machines” (although it would likely be exempt from the transport-related requirements under applicable modal Dangerous Goods Regulations when containing not more than 12 kg [26.5 lbs.] of a non-flammable, non-toxic refrigerant gas).
     In practice such issues are indeed causing delays, unplanned expenses, and fruitless discussions, since not all articles written in abundance about GHS and its correct application were suitable to be understood by a broader audience, which does include the stakeholders.
     A common misperception is that “anyone repacking or redistributing a chemical in commerce may simply transfer the (GHS and or DG transport) label and SDS information” as long as the substance is not diluted, mixed, or otherwise altered. While that is usually the case, notable exceptions do exist—and sometimes even the competent authorities of different states have differing opinions, not to the benefit of the manufacturer or distributor.
     And while GHS is a global undertaking, nothing in the UN’s GHS Handbook prevents nation states from imposing additional requirements above and beyond GHS in regard to OSHA hazard communication requirements. So while GHS is a huge step ahead and a most welcome lowering of trade barriers, certain small differences stemming from national legislation may be less obvious than before, but all the more important.
     As for trade between Europe and North America, the trade agreements TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – EC/US) and CETA (Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement – EC-Canada) should further facilitate the uniform application of such standards and do away with most particular requirements of the nation states, as these would—under these agreements—be considered the trade barriers, which they are, as a matter of fact.
     While the overall quality of SDS should improve with full GHS implementation and while it should ease the ordeal of comparing products in different markets, it must still be said that using SDS as the sole source of assessing health risks associated with the use of such products by employees or buyers in commerce or using the SDS as a means of transport classification may still not be a good idea.      Something the old MSDS and the new SDS have in common is that just one part is guaranteed to be legally binding: the disclaimer at the end stipulating that “all information is based on current knowledge and is intended to describe the product for the purposes of health, safety, and environmental requirements only. It should not therefore be construed as guaranteeing any specific property of the product. Information in this SDS is from available published sources and is believed to be accurate. No warranty, express or implied, is made and no liability is assumed resulting from the use of this SDS. The user must determine suitability of this information for his application.”
Jens

AAI Chairman R. K. Srivastava (left) with G. K. Chaukiyal, Member (Operations), AAI.

The major international airports of India—Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, and Kochi—are no longer in the hands of the government-controlled Airports Authority of India (AAI) since they were handed over to private operators, and AAI is now developing strategies to build a stronger revenue stream from air cargo.
     After his first meeting with air cargo stakeholders, the recently appointed AAI Chairman R. K. Srivastava noted that the spotlight was on cargo.
     “AAI,” he said, “is venturing into the new area of domestic cargo operations with an objective to create the basic infrastructure at its airports, which have potential for air cargo growth.”
     One of the drivers here is that AAI has been pushed to find new sources for revenue generation to maintain its position as a Mini Ratna Category-1 entity (the status is awarded to government-controlled enterprises that made profits continuously for the last three years or earned a net profit of Rs. 30 crore or $4.82 million or more in one of the three years). The organization is also trying to move ahead of the Mini Ratna category to attain Navratna status (that is when the enterprise scores 60 out of 100, based on six parameters which include net profit, net worth, total manpower cost, total cost of production, cost of services, PBDIT (Profit Before Depreciation, Interest and Taxes), capital employed, etc.).
     Srivastava told FlyingTypers that air cargo was integral to the growth of the nation and that the AAI had been pioneering the development of international cargo operations in the country.
     This resulted in active international cargo operations at various metro and non-metro airports. He said that he had met air cargo stakeholders to understand the problems they were facing. “There are many issues relating to different sectors. We have identified them and discussed them in our efforts to resolve these issues. Our role is to provide infrastructure and facilitate business," the Chairman emphasized.
     Now that India was poised to take a big leap in manufacturing, development of infrastructure, and e-commerce, for which logistics played a vital role, the AAI had “risen to the occasion . . . AAI is now ready to take a lead in developing domestic air cargo in the country,” he said.
     In fact, “domestic cargo grew by 10 percent and international by five percent last year.”
     As a part of this plan, AAI was in the “process of developing 24 domestic airports for Common User Domestic Cargo Terminal, which will facilitate to exploit the full potential of domestic cargo. This process will be further accelerated through a focused approach for developing more domestic cargo operations in the coming days,” he said. The Chairman also mentioned that already three airports—Jaipur, Lucknow, and Coimbatore—had started cargo operations and the other 21 would start in a couple of years.
Tirthankar Ghosh

     Tavishi Ipsita simply fell in love with the cargo industry when she was still a student. As she told ACNFT, “Building a career in cargo was my choice…” So when the time came for her to choose her specialization for her post-graduate course in Travel and Tourism, she could think of nothing else but Air Cargo Operations and Management. Since then, she has not veered from her quest for knowledge in her chosen path: “The key to my journey is all about learning, knowledge sharing, and determination in my work,” she emphasized. Also the certifications from IATA have helped her “a lot to add dimension to my career and give me a leading edge.”
     She knew what she was getting into. But then, as she likes to put it, when there is a will there is a way. So she jumped into a virtually all-male environment to pursue her career: “Cargo is my passion and I enjoy being part of the cargo industry,” she mentioned, and went on to point out that while “the percentage of women in cargo is far less in comparison to male counterparts … but I joined the industry when the times were changing.”
     Obstacles that came in her way were brushed aside. “If you are determined to achieve something and have set your goals then surely you will achieve them.” The young lady believes that she has not faced any trouble so far in her career; thanks largely “to all my organizations that have given me equal opportunity as my male colleagues.”
     Tavishi has spent more than nine years in the cargo industry. The first six were when she got her hands dirty but they gave her the opportunity and experience she now finds very useful as a Cargo Domain consultant in IT. She is, in fact, associated with Accenture as part of the Freight and Logistics Software Product Management Team. The transition from the core airline cargo background to IT has been quite a change and Tavishi terms it “an overwhelming experience.” She is elated with the fact that with her industry knowledge she has been able to contribute in the development of a cargo management system. “The development and implementation of an IT project for Airline/CTO has provided me great scope for added value and has been a catalyst to enhance my knowledge base.” The lady also has IATA certification in Air Cargo Basic and Advance Rating as well as specialization in IATA E-AWB implementation and e-freight.
     She mentioned that she had been “quite lucky throughout my career as I have always been with supportive colleagues who were keen learners themselves. I had great mentors from whom I learned about cargo and the industry. I believe that knowledge sharing is one of the keys that act as a two-way communication for competency development.”
     Today, almost nine years later, she proudly says that, “choosing a career in cargo was a right, wise, and rational decision.” She exults in it because “each day there is a learning opportunity. I am very keen to learn all new upcoming developments in the cargo industry. The industry is progressing in leaps and bounds with all new initiatives like e-freight, e-AWB, CXML, e-booking, etc. With all these latest developments, our customers know exactly what they want and they too are moving towards automation of their business processes.” Working towards fulfilling customers’ requirements, providing them the solution with an automated system, blending traditional process with the latest technology “is quite challenging and that is what motivates me,” she said.
     Tavishi leaves us with a Sidonie Gabrielle Colette quote that best describes her: “The woman who thinks she is intelligent demands equal rights with men. A woman who is intelligent does not.”
Tirthankar Ghosh

If You Missed Any Of The Previous 3 Issues Of FlyingTypers
Access complete issue by clicking on issue icon or
Access specific articles by clicking on article title