• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence

• Security Menu                     

• Systems
• Industry
• Operations
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Space

TABLE OF CONTENTS(Click on Section)

PURPOSE

BACKGROUND

WITNESSES

The Subcommittee on Aviation will meet to receive testimony from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the General Accounting Office (GAO), and industry representatives to provide an update on the status of airline passenger and baggage screening efforts, with a focus on checkpoint and technology deployment issues. This hearing will not address other screening-related issues such as CAPPS II, airport opt-out, and cargo screening. These issues may be the focus of later hearings.

On November 19, 2001, in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11th, President Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA)¹ to establish the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). This Act also directed the Federal government to take responsibility for the screening of all commercial airline passengers and baggage for weapons, explosives, and other hazardous or dangerous items. Prior to ATSA, commercial airlines were responsible for screening their passengers.

Since its establishment, TSA has federalized 451 commercial service airports² throughout the U.S. and its territories. It has deployed 1,100 Explosive Detection Systems (EDS), 1,850 advanced X-ray scanning devices, and 7,263 Explosive Trace Detection Systems (ETD). As of January 31, 2004, the TSA had approximately 45,300 full-time and part-time screeners on it payrolls³.

Screening has been divided into two primary areas: passenger screening and checked baggage screening. Screener man-hours are split roughly 55% for passenger screening and 45% for baggage screening. In FY2003, TSA spent $1.958 billion on passenger screening and $1.437 billion on checked baggage screening. TSA has begun to commingle resources between passenger and baggage screening functions. In FY2004, TSA plans to spend $3.908 on screening activities and has requested $4.813 billion in FY2005.

I. Passenger Screening:

TSA estimates that it screens, on average, 1.7 million passengers and their carry-on items for dangerous objects every day. In the month of December 2003 alone, TSA intercepted 161,463 knives, 265,468 sharp objects, 1,780 box cutters, and 35 firearms.

TSA has a goal to reduce the total wait-time for passengers wishing to clear screening checkpoints to ten minutes. In recent months, however, the aviation community has voiced growing concern over longer lines, increasing processing times, and screener shortages. Officials at McCarren International Airport (LAS) in Las Vegas, Nevada contend that processing times at TSA-operated checkpoints have increased as much as 50 percent in recent weeks. Los Angeles International Airport estimates a screener shortage that is 20 to 25 percent below the TSA approved staffing level. Industry analysts forecast that airline passenger traffic will increase by 5% in 2004. Critics believe TSA is not prepared to handle this influx of new passengers.

Factors contributing to the growing checkpoint lines seem to vary from airport to airport. TSA has received criticism over its handling of screener attrition, its hiring and training practices, its staffing models, and standard operating procedure inflexibility. Several airport directors and TSA-employed Federal Security Directors (FSDs) have called for more local and regional decision-making authority to solve this growing problem.

In testimony previously given to Congress, TSA initially estimated the annual screener attrition rate at 16 percent. Recent evidence, however, seems to indicate significantly higher rates at the major commercial airports and among part-time employees and female screeners.

While these higher than expected attrition rates may be the root of the problem, TSA's cumbersome hiring and training practices have added to the persistent screener shortages. Evidence suggests that TSA will often wait for a sufficiently high number of screener vacancies before opening up an assessment center to search for qualified candidates. Assessment centers often cover a large geographic area and can even span several states. Potential qualified candidates may be discouraged from applying for a screening position if they must travel a long distance to be evaluated. Once a significantly large pool of applicants has been identified, TSA provides a ranked list of applicants to the Federal Security Director and then often closes the assessment center. Anecdotal evidence suggests a large number of applicants drop out of the process between selection and completion of training. No data is currently available on drop out rates.

TSA has been working for several months to develop new staffing models. When TSA first deployed its screeners, it based its staffing needs on passenger levels and screening lanes. The result was "Thousands Standing Around" at major connecting airports where most passengers do not go through screening, and shortages at origin and destination airports. TSA modified its model to reflect passenger boardings, but its principally full-time workforce did not provide adequate flexibility to manage peak hour traffic or to adjust to various air service models. TSA's latest model is closely tied to published airline schedules⁴ and relies heavily on part-time employees to provide screening during peak periods.

In addition to checkpoint delays, poor screener performance continues to plague TSA. TSA has only conducted a limited number of covert tests on its screeners, and still lacks both data and clear assessment tools to measure, analyze, and evaluate individual and/or overall screener performance. TSA is in the process of developing a performance index to serve as a metric and has recently begun deploying the new Threat Image Projection (TIP) system to test screeners' ability to interpret X-ray images.

According to TSA standard operating procedures, a screener that fails a test must be removed from that screening function and immediately sent to remedial training. There are unconfirmed reports that due to screener shortages, TSA is several months behind on corrective actions.

ATSA requires screeners to be re-certified annually. TSA believes it is on track to have a re-certification process for March 2004. However, some screeners have already been deployed for over one year.

II. Baggage Screening:

ATSA required TSA to establish a system to screen all checked baggage and required TSA to deploy explosive detection systems at all commercial service airports by the end of 2002. The Homeland Security Act extended this deadline by one year.

In its effort to meet the explosive detection deadline, TSA has placed hundreds of EDS machines and thousands of ETD machines in airport check-in areas across the country. Critics contend that these machines have crowded airport lobbies and created safety and security concerns, decreased system efficiency, and dramatically increased TSA staffing requirements.

The airport community has pushed to move the EDS equipment out of airport lobbies and place them in-line as part of an airport's integrated baggage system. The airports estimate the cost for terminal modifications necessary to achieve this solution--such as reinforced flooring, electrical upgrades, building new facilities, etc.-will run $5 billion.

Through FY2004, Congress has appropriated $1.488 billion for EDS-related terminal modifications. Additionally, nearly $1 billion in Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding was used in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to address airport security expenses, including projects related to EDS installation. Of those funds, however, a large portion was used by TSA on the short-term challenges associated with getting machines into the airports for the December 31, 2002 deadline, leaving a significant resource gap.

To date, eight airports have converted to full in-line EDS systems. One airport has been partially converted. Six airports have facility modifications underway, and 14 more have approved plans.

TSA is authorized to sign letters of intent (LOIs) with airports specifying long-term funding arrangements for EDS installation. In addition, the recently enacted Vision 100-Century of Aviation Act (P.L. 108-176) established a security capital fund authorized at $500 million a year for four years to fund LOIs and to meet other airport security-related capital improvements. To this point, TSA has issued the following LOIs, which will be paid over several years subject to the availability of funding:

There are roughly sixty more airports seeking LOIs. TSA estimates that it will require more than $2 billion for EDS installation at the top 20 airports, and more than $4 billion for all airports. TSA stated that it intends to sign only a handful of additional LOIs, leaving a significant number of airports across the country without a long-term EDS solution.

TSA met the December 31, 2003 EDS deployment deadline at all a handful of commercial service airports. However, there may be an additional 15-30 airports that are chronically unable to screen 100 percent of checked bags electronically 100 percent of the time due to staffing or mechanical issues. At these airports or any other airport where EDS and ETD machines are unavailable due to mechanical or staffing issues, TSA employs alternative methods of screening.

III. Screening Technology:

TSA uses a variety of security screening equipment to screen passengers and baggage, including walk-through and handheld metal detectors, X-ray machines, explosive trace detection machines (ETD), and explosive detection systems (EDS). All currently deployed technologies have limitations that create operational inefficiency and require additional backup screening methods.

Security experts believe that the next generation of passenger and baggage-screening equipment will significantly improve the detection of weapons, explosives, and chemical or biological threats and improve airport operations while reducing costs.

In FY2003, Congress appropriated $110.2 million for security technology research, $75 million of which was earmarked for research into next generation EDS machines. However, due to funding shortages in its operating accounts, TSA reprogrammed $61.2 of the $75 million to cover screener salaries. TSA used most of the remaining funding for two projects: the Phoenix Project and the Manhattan 2 Project.

The Phoenix Project will upgrade existing EDS technology to lower false alarms, increase throughput, or improve detection capabilities. The Manhattan 2 project will evaluate and develop next generation EDS technology.

TSA is also evaluating several technologies to augment or replace checkpoint systems, including backscatter x-rays, trace portals, document scanners, and shoe scanners. The Administration has requested $49 million for applied research and development funding to develop advanced systems to identify illegally transported explosive devices and other weapons. TSA has also requested $50 million to continue research and development of next generation explosive detection equipment.

TSA expects to have its deployment "roadmaps" completed within the month, and technologies piloted within the next 9-12 months after that.

1. (P.L. 107-71)
2. Includes private screener pilot program.
3. According to the FY2005 Budget of the U.S. Government, TSA will require 45,000 Full-Time Equivalent Staff Years (FTEs) of screener time in FY2004.
4. Commercial airline flights schedules are in the Official Airline Guide (OAG)