For versions 005010 and 005050 of Data Element 756 -- Report Transmission CodeWhat is the distinction between:CODE VALUECODE DESCRIPTION9Electronic MailEME-MailIf there is no distinction, is one value preferred over the other?REFERENCED X12 STANDARDSThe following X12 Standards were reviewed in developing this interpretation:X12.3 Data Element Dictionary, Versions 005010 and 005050FORMAL INTERPRETATIONThere is no distinction between the code values “9” and “EM” for Data Element 756 – Report TransmissionCode. The Data Element Dictionary provides no guidance as to which is preferred
If an X12 version is implemented that supports both of these code values for DE 756 we recommend thatusers specify which of the two code values are acceptable in the implementation.In researching the development history we determined that DM 578394 added Code value “9”m ElectronicMail, to DE 756. The DM was approved for ballot in October 1994, published in February 1995, andincluded in version 003060.DM 280296 added Code “EM”, E-mail, to DE 756. Originally, DM 280296 did not contain the action to addany codes to DE 756. When the DM was initially reviewed in April 1996, TAS recommended using DE 756instead of creating new DE 1604. Thus, in June 1996, DM 280296 was approved for ballot as modified, andone of the modifications was to delete proposed DE 1604 and move the 12 proposed codes over to DE 756,including the code “EM” E-mail. DM 280296 was approved for publication in October 1996, and included inversion 003070.In retrospect, it appears that there was an oversight when the code list from proposed DE 1604 was addedto DE 756, as the equivalent code value was not noted. We are considering submitting a data maintenance request to depreciate code value "EM".