[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHECKPOINT OF THE FUTURE: EVALUATING TSA'S INNOVATION TASK FORCE
INITIATIVE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND
PROTECTIVE SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 27, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-14
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-292 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Mike Rogers, Alabama James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
John Katko, New York Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Will Hurd, Texas Kathleen M. Rice, New York
Martha McSally, Arizona J. Luis Correa, California
John Ratcliffe, Texas Val Butler Demings, Florida
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Mike Gallagher, Wisconsin
Clay Higgins, Louisiana
John H. Rutherford, Florida
Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Virginia
Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Kathleen Crooks Flynn, Deputy General Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PROTECTIVE SECURITY
John Katko, New York, Chairman
Peter T. King, New York Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Mike Rogers, Alabama William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex (ex officio)
officio)
Krista P. Harvey, Subcommittee Staff Director
Cedric C. Haynes, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable John Katko, a Representative in Congress From the
State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
and Protective Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Transportation and Protective Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
Witnesses
Mr. Steve Karoly, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Requirements and Capabilities Analysis, Transportation Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Mr. Roosevelt Council Jr., General Manager, Hartsfield-Jackson
Atlanta International Airport, Department of Aviation, City of
Atlanta, Georgia:
Oral Statement................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 14
Ms. Jeanne M. Olivier, A.A.E., Assistant Director, Aviation
Security and Technology, Security Operations and Programs
Department, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey:
Oral Statement................................................. 16
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
Appendix
Questions From Chairman John Katko for Steve Karoly.............. 35
Questions From Ranking Member Watson Coleman for Steve Karoly.... 36
Questions From Chairman John Katko for Roosevelt Council, Jr..... 37
Questions From Chairman Michael T. McCaul for Jeanne M. Olivier.. 38
CHECKPOINT OF THE FUTURE: EVALUATING TSA'S INNOVATION TASK FORCE
INITIATIVE
----------
Thursday, April 27, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Transportation and
Protective Security,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitors Center, Hon. John Katko
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Katko, Rogers, Higgins,
Fitzpatrick, Watson Coleman, and Payne.
Mr. Katko. The Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee
on Transportation and Protective Security will come to order.
Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge a couple of
distinguished guests here today: Mr. Costello Coleman and Mr.
Anthony Devone. Both of them are students from Friendship
Collegiate Academy here in the District of Columbia, and one of
them I am trying to get to go to Syracuse University, so we
will have to see how that goes.
The subcommittee is meeting today to examine the
implementation of the Transportation Security Administration's
Administrative Task Force initiative. In addition to TSA, we
will also hear from airport stakeholders that have partnered
with the task force.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
I would like to welcome everyone to the Subcommittee on
Transportation and Protective Security's hearing to examine the
state of TSA's Innovative Task Force initiative. Many of us
here are all too familiar with the struggles TSA has faced over
its 15-year history to field cutting-edge technology and
security solutions in a timely manner to meet the ever-evolving
threat landscape.
A year ago, then-Administrator Neffenger launched the
Innovative Task Force initiative in an effort to inculcate a
culture of innovation into how the organization thinks about
meeting the challenges of current and evolving threats. I
commend the former administrator for starting this critical
effort, and I support the important mission of this initiative.
However, it is the committee's job to make sure that the
task force is meeting its stated goals and has the resources it
needs. With effective oversight we can all work together to
ensure that the positive momentum created by the Innovative
Task Force initiative, or ITF, continues and that the lessons
learned are not confined to a vacuum, but instead both support
and inform the broader mission and goals of the TSA as a whole.
What is most important is that TSA leverages the work of
this initiative to guarantee to the American people that future
procurement decisions are a sound investment of taxpayer
dollars and that the technology TSA procures is capable of
detecting the latest threat.
While the Federal Government is ultimately responsible for
delivering on the secure freedom of movement throughout the
Nation's transportation systems, the effectiveness of the
security framework surrounding that movement hinges on the
private sector's commitment to innovation and continuous
development of the new security technologies to screen millions
of passengers and bags every day.
However, quality innovation comes with a hefty price tag,
and we cannot reasonably expect the private sector to spend
millions of dollars in the research and development of new and
emerging technologies without greater transparency and
communication from both TSA and the Department of Homeland
Security.
Currently, TSA is focusing on deploying automated screening
lanes across 21 of the Nation's largest airports. Automated
screening lanes should help reduce passenger queues at the
checkpoint.
As we have seen with recent attacks around the world,
terrorists are increasingly targeting public spaces with large
crowds of people to inflict the maximum number of casualties,
and anything we can do to reduce that target is a good thing.
Thus, the automated screening lanes can serve to enhance the
passenger experience, ease the burden on TSOs, and eliminate
security vulnerabilities.
When thinking about how to build the checkpoint of the
future, TSA should strive to meet all of these goals when
acquiring new technology and proposing new solutions. However,
to accomplish this we need to reach far beyond automated
screening lanes.
This is why I am pleased that the ITF has plans to pilot
C.T. X-rays at passenger checkpoints and venture into biometric
authentication technology and innovations in passenger
communication all before the end of the summer travel season.
That is a laudable goal.
I am also optimistic about TSA's efforts to connect
industry with airport operators across the country to
facilitate innovation in other aspects of transportation
security outside the checkpoint, such as employee screening and
biometric bag drop. However, we can and should be doing more.
All of these demonstrations and pilots will be wasted if
they fail to inform the administration's Strategic Five-Year
Technology Investment Plan or enhance TSA's somewhat troubled
procurement process. I hope when the next administrator is
appointed he or she will continue to build on the progress of
the task force and better integrate its work across TSA and DHS
as a whole to leverage its successes.
I believe that we are behind the curve concerning our
technology innovation, particularly with respect to what is
going on in Europe in some places, and the traveler experience
at our Nation's airports. Many foreign airports have
implemented improved security scanners, better biometric
capabilities, and smarter systems for passenger queuing to meet
the emerging threats in a timely manner.
I look forward to hearing the perspectives of our witnesses
on how TSA and its industry partners are working together to
bring more innovative solutions to transportation security and
what more needs to be done to meet this goal. I encourage all
of the witnesses today to be candid about how the scope of this
initiative can be expanded.
It is not often when we ask these questions that we are
going to today: What else could you use to make your job
better? We are going--we are going to be asking questions like
that because we want to know. We want to know how DHS and TSA
can better support this task force.
With that, I am pleased to recognize the Ranking Member of
the subcommittee, my friend and the gentlelady from New Jersey,
Mrs. Bonnie Watson Coleman, for her opening statement.
[The statement of Chairman Katko follows:]
Statement of Chairman John Katko
April 27, 2017
I would like to welcome everyone to the Subcommittee on
Transportation and Protective Security's hearing to examine the state
of TSA's Innovation Task Force initiative. Many of us here are all too
familiar with the struggles TSA has faced over its 15-year history to
field cutting-edge technology and security solutions to meet the ever-
evolving threat landscape.
A year ago, then-Administrator Neffenger launched the Innovation
Task Force initiative in an effort to inculcate a culture of innovation
into how the organization thinks about meeting the challenges of
current and evolving threats. I commend the former administrator for
starting this critical effort, and I support the important mission of
this initiative.
However, it is this committee's job to make sure that this task
force is meeting its stated goals, and has the resources it needs. With
effective oversight, we can all work together to ensure that the
positive momentum created by the Innovation Task Force initiative
continues and that the lessons learned are not confined to a vacuum,
but instead both support and inform the broader mission and goals of
TSA as a whole. What is most important is that TSA leverages the work
of this initiative to guarantee to the American people that future
procurement decisions are a sound investment of taxpayer dollars and
that the technology TSA procures is capable of detecting the latest
threat.
While the Federal Government is ultimately responsible for
delivering on the secure freedom of movement throughout the Nation's
transportation systems, the effectiveness of the security framework
surrounding that movement hinges on the private sector's commitment to
innovation and continuous development of new security technologies to
screen millions of passengers and bags every day.
However, quality innovation comes with a hefty price tag, and we
cannot reasonably expect the private sector to spend millions of
dollars in the research and development of new and emerging
technologies without greater transparency and communication from both
TSA and the Department of Homeland Security.
Currently, TSA is focusing on deploying Automated Screening Lanes,
across 21 of the Nation's largest airports. Automated Screening Lanes
should help to reduce passenger queues at the checkpoint. As we have
seen with recent attacks around the world, terrorists are increasingly
targeting public spaces with large crowds of people to inflict the
maximum number of casualties.
Thus, the Automated Screening Lanes can serve to enhance the
passenger experience, ease the burden on TSOs, and eliminate security
vulnerabilities. When thinking about how to build the checkpoint of the
future, TSA should strive to meet all three of these goals when
acquiring new technology and proposing new solutions.
However, to accomplish this we need to reach far beyond Automated
Screening Lanes. This is why I am pleased that the ITF has plans to
pilot CT X-rays at passenger checkpoints, biometric authentication
technology, and innovations in passenger communication all before the
end of the summer travel season.
I am also optimistic about TSA's efforts to connect industry with
airport operators across the country to facilitate innovation in other
aspects of transportation security outside the checkpoint--such as
employee screening and biometric bag drop. However, we can and should
be doing more.
All of these demonstrations and pilots will be wasted effort if
they fail to inform the administration's Strategic Five-Year Technology
Investment Plan or enhance TSA's broken procurement process. I hope
when the next administrator is appointed, he or she will continue to
build on the progress of this task force, and better integrate its work
across TSA and DHS as a whole to leverage its successes.
I believe that we are behind the curve concerning our technology
innovation and the traveler experience at our Nation's airports. Many
foreign airports have implemented improved security scanners, better
biometric capabilities, and smarter systems for passenger queuing to
meet the emerging threats of today.
I look forward to hearing the perspectives of our witnesses on how
TSA and its industry partners are working together to bring more
innovative solutions to transportation security, and what more needs to
be done to meet this goal.
I encourage all of the witnesses today to be candid about how the
scope of this initiative can be expanded, and how DHS and TSA can
better support this task force.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for being here
today. I am particularly excited to see Ms. Olivier here, who
is representing the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
and to discuss the progress that has been made at the Newark
Airport and is soon to be made at JFK Airport at improving
passenger screening.
It was a pleasure to meet with Mr. Karoly and Mr. Council
as we prepared for this meeting today.
I, along with millions of people, rely on the Port
Authority services, and I am especially pleased that you are
here as a leader in transforming passenger screening services.
TSA's role in protecting passengers comes with a unique set of
challenges.
Among these challenges is responding to the ever-evolving
threat environment where terrorist groups innovate when it
comes to bomb-making. This homeland security issue demands that
TSA not only assess whether its current security protocols can
detect such threats, but also act swiftly to identify, test,
and put in place technologies and processes to address such
threats.
TSA is charged with carrying out this critical homeland
security responsibility in an environment that often does not
come with long-term fiscal planning resources. When TSA
launched the Innovation Task Force in 2016 I was pleased to see
TSA embrace direct collaboration with aviation security
stakeholders in a more formal dialog to help drive the movement
of the best ideas from paper to the airport checkpoint.
Since that time, aviation security stakeholders have
provided a range of feedback about the task force, but all
agreed that it has been a helpful forum for their efforts to
innovate passenger security screening. Though the impact of the
task force is limited today, with the demonstrations underway
at a handful of airports, it seems well-positioned to make
great strides in improving passenger security screening, and I
applaud all involved for their efforts.
Currently, there are 48 automated screening lanes in
operation around the country, with 17 of those in Newark
Liberty International and 19 in Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport. I am pleased that in the coming months
TSA plans to put more automated screening lanes in more
airports around the country and that at the same time TSA is
pursuing complementary initiatives such as demonstrations of
biometric authentication technology, also known as BAT, and
computed tomography.
The Transportation Security Administration's Innovation
Task Force is a great platform for TSA to support and engage
with stakeholders committed to innovating the passenger
screening service. Going forward, TSA needs to be more
strategic and transparent about investments in innovation and
allocate adequate resources for such effort.
For instance, it would be good to know how the task force
initiatives line up with TSA's Five-Year Technology Investment
Plan. To date, much of the cost of the development technology
for the demonstrations has been borne by the private-sector
stakeholders, as was stated by the Chairman; and it will be
important to know if going forward TSA plans to make
investments in technologies that it develops through the task
force.
I look forward to hearing today how Congress can be more
helpful in ensuring that the task force's efforts can be
sustained and improved to deliver more effective and efficient
passenger screening experience to the flying public.
Once again, I thank you all for being here and for sharing
your testimony with us.
I yield back the balance of my time to the Chairman.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mrs. Watson Coleman.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
April 27, 2017
In March 2016, TSA launched the Innovation Task Force as a platform
for collaboration between TSA, airports, air carriers, and security
technology stakeholders in furtherance of the development and
integration of innovative security capabilities into our Nation's
airports.
Since the launch of the Task Force, we have heard from stakeholders
about the progress that has been made in passenger screening. As a
result of Task Force efforts, there are a number of technology
demonstrations in the cue to be rolled out in the airport environment.
These innovative systems are geared at making TSA's security screening
more efficient and effective.
In preparation for this hearing, one thing has become apparent to
me--the private sector has provided a great deal of leadership in
passenger screening initiatives. I applaud the efforts of the airlines,
the airports, vendors who have overwhelmingly embraced this opportunity
to improve passengers' screening experience, while enhancing airport
security.
It has also become clear to me that this Task Force was something
that was needed for a very long time and I applaud former--TSA
administrator John Neffenger for recognizing the need and putting this
initiative is in place.
I also want to recognize Dr. Huban Gowadia who--since January, has
overseen TSA in an acting capacity and has shown great commitment to
the Task Force. It is troubling that we are nearly 100 days into the
Trump administration and, as with so many other critical positions, the
President has failed to nominate a TSA administrator.
Turning back to the subject at hand, I look forward to learning
more about how the Task Force has been functioning, how stakeholders
have been able to build upon their working relationships with TSA and
each other to move forward with innovative passenger screening
technologies as well as how Congress can support these efforts.
I look forward to hearing today about ways Congress can be a
partner in helping the Innovation Task Force achieve its goals.
Mr. Katko. We are very pleased to have a distinguished
panel here to testify before us today on this very important
topic.
Our first witness, Mr. Steve Karoly, has never testified
before Congress, and I know how excited he is to do so, right?
Mr. Karoly. Absolutely.
Mr. Katko. He serves as the acting assistant administrator
for TSA's Office of Requirements and Capabilities Analysis.
Thank you for being here, sir.
Mr. Karoly has been with TSA since 2014, prior to which he
served almost 30 years as a captain in the U.S. Navy and Naval
Reserve.
We thank you for your on-going service to our country.
I would also like to recognize Mr. Karoly's daughter,
Olivia--stand up, Olivia; say hello, all right--who is in the
audience today. She is in the eighth grade and accompanying her
father for Bring Your Children to Work Day at TSA.
Now, this is a pretty interesting day to come to work with
your dad. Maybe one day I will be introducing Olivia to testify
before the committee herself.
Our second witness, Mr. Roosevelt Council, Jr., who was
named the general manager of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport in January 2017. Prior to this role, Mr.
Council served as deputy general manager and chief financial
officer for the airport.
He is a graduate of Memphis State University, the Harvard
Executive Leadership Program, and the Georgia Leadership
Council. I have spoken with Mr. Council before and he is truly
an impressive gentleman.
Our third witness is Ms. Jeanne Olivier, the assistant
director for aviation security and technology at the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey. Ms. Olivier has worked
with the Port Authority for over 30 years and airport
operational management positions at JFK International,
LaGuardia, Newark Liberty International, and Teterboro
Airports. She has managed the Central Aviation Security Program
since the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, including
oversight of security and technology for the Port Authority's
five airports.
I would like to thank all of you for being here today, and
I look forward to your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Steve Karoly for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF STEVE KAROLY, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF REQUIREMENTS AND CAPABILITIES ANALYSIS,
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Karoly. Thank you, Chairman Katko.
Good afternoon, Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson
Coleman, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the Transportation Security Administration's Innovation Task
Force, or ITF, and its role in fulfilling our mission to
protect the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom
of movement for people and commerce. It is truly an honor and
privilege to be here.
Chairman Katko, I thank you for recognizing my daughter.
Although this is my first time to testify, I am probably more
concerned about what she thinks at the end of this.
I appreciate----
Mr. Katko. She is a teenager, so don't get too optimistic.
Mr. Karoly. I appreciate the committee's interest in and
support of this initiative, including visits by you and your
staff to the TSA Systems Integration Facility and airports
deploying ITF technologies, as well as language enacted last
year directing TSA to pursue innovative technology solutions. I
also appreciate the collaboration of our airport, air carrier,
and industry partners, including my colleagues here today, to
demonstrate emerging technologies at our Nation's airports.
TSA is taking a transformative new approach to technology
with the Innovation Task Force. The ITF allows vendors to
gather live stream-of-commerce data in the field in order to
inform and refine their technology prior to entering the formal
acquisition process. This ensures that better product enters
formal testing while allowing TSA to gain immediate benefits.
TSA laid out a plan to improve our technology capabilities
in the Strategic Five-Year Technology Investment Plan for
Aviation Security. This plan acknowledges the challenges in
integrating new technologies into the operational environment
prior to formal field testing and makes the commitment to
increase stakeholder access to the operating environments. This
laid the foundation for the Innovation Task Force, which TSA
stood up in the spring of 2016.
In 9 short weeks we were able to deploy our first
innovative solution, the automated screening lanes, or ASLs, at
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, in
partnership with Delta Air Lines and with the support of our
Atlanta Airport partners. These ASLs augment existing X-ray
screening technology for carry-on baggage and include multiple
divestiture stations, enhanced bin tracking and data
capabilities, and automated bin returns.
Taking into account recent terror attacks on public airport
areas, ASLs help TSA address concerns regarding crowding in
public areas. In September 2016 the Department of Homeland
Security approved an urgent operational need justification
authorizing the deployment of up to 220 ASLs at 21 specified
airports by January 31, 2018. This deployment is, of course,
dependent upon TSA's establishing partnerships with
stakeholders for additional lane deployments.
Following the demonstrated success in Atlanta and DHS
approval, TSA partnered with additional airlines and airports
to deploy ASLs. Today we have 51 ASLs in operation at four
airports across the country.
Two of our largest ASL deployments include 22 lanes at
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and 17 lanes
at Newark Liberty International Airport. Our most recent
deployment was three lanes in Atlanta, which went live
yesterday.
Additional ASLs are operational at Los Angeles and Chicago
O'Hare International Airports.
While ASLs were our first ITF demonstration to be deployed,
they will not be our last. Future ITF technologies include
using computed tomography at the checkpoint, traditionally a
technology used for checked baggage, to improve carry-on
baggage detection.
ITF's biometric authentication technology, or BAT, proof of
concept uses fingerprint scanning to verify TSA PreCheck
passenger identities. Eventually, BAT could automate the ticket
document checker process by electronically verifying passenger
identity and secure flight status.
Additionally, in an effort to improve our understanding of
existing market capabilities, TSA issued its first innovation-
related broad agency announcement in May 2016. We received 81
responses and completed over 200 technical reviews; 52 percent
of those solutions submitted had not been previously deployed
domestically or internationally.
TSA selected eight of these technologies to potentially
join the portfolio of ITF solutions, and planning activities
for these demonstrations are underway.
TSA plans to release the second innovation-related BAA in
May 2017.
To be clear, the ITF does not provide a shortcut around
traditional acquisition processes. While data gathered from ITF
demonstrations may be used to inform manufacturers in the
design and preparation of their prototype units for testing at
DHS and TSA, these technologies still need to go through the
rigors of the acquisition process before becoming a program of
record.
I would like to conclude by offering you all the
opportunity to visit the TSA Systems Integration Facility,
located nearby Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, to
see first-hand these ITF technologies in action. I would also
like to thank the subcommittee for its continued support of the
ITF and our airport, airline, and industry partners whose
support make this endeavor possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Karoly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Karoly
April 27, 2017
Good morning, Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Transportation
Security Administration's (TSA) Innovation Task Force (ITF) and its
role in fulfilling our mission to protect the Nation's transportation
systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. I
appreciate the committee's interest in and support of this initiative
as we work with our airport, air carrier, and other industry partners
to demonstrate emerging technologies at our Nation's airports.
background
TSA prioritizes its technology investments based on the latest
intelligence concerning terrorist capabilities and intent. This is
accomplished by performing risk analyses which serve as the foundation
for deriving operational needs and requirements. These analyses take
into consideration potential threats, vulnerabilities to those threats
given current system capabilities, and the consequences in the event of
an attack. To meet the challenges posed by these risk factors, TSA and
industry partners must continually adapt and evolve screening
technologies, processes, and systems.
TSA laid out a plan to improve our technology capabilities in the
Strategic Five-Year Technology Investment Plan for Aviation Security
(the Plan), mandated under the Transportation Security Acquisition
Reform Act (Pub. L. 113-245). In the Plan, initially released in August
2015, TSA laid the foundation for what would become the ITF. One of
TSA's five focus areas in the Plan includes ``Increasing Transparency
in Engagement with Stakeholders to Enable Innovation.'' The Plan
acknowledges that one of the difficulties with the development and
integration of new capabilities is the integration of these
capabilities into TSA's operational environment, given the difficulties
of simulating the operational environment prior to formal testing in
the field. In addition, the Plan provides a commitment to increase
stakeholder access to the operating environments these capabilities are
designed to improve or enhance. To deliver on this commitment, TSA
established the ITF in the spring of 2016.
TSA launched the ITF to demonstrate emerging capabilities in the
passenger screening checkpoint and the checked baggage screening areas
and charged the agency to re-envision the entire transportation
security system as an integrated whole; increasing security
effectiveness, while reducing friction to the traveler. ITF
accomplishes this through the establishment of innovation sites. An
innovation site is a designated airport where TSA is actively
partnering with the airport authority and/or air carrier(s) to
demonstrate one or more prototype technology, process, or staffing
solutions. The ITF has led to the deployment of Automated Screening
Lanes (ASLs) and is planning new projects ranging from aesthetic
improvements to new detection technologies.
site selection process
TSA selects innovation sites based on several criteria to ensure
TSA resources are utilized efficiently, and in compliance with the
requirements of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016
(Pub. L. 114-190). Under our current methodology, TSA selects Category
X airports where it will establish innovation sites based on the
following site-selection criteria:
Ability to begin the reconfiguration and installation of
security systems expeditiously;
Ability to share costs through Federal funding, airport
funding, or otherwise;
Infrastructure, and space needed to reduce vulnerabilities
and reconfigure existing security systems, and not negatively
impact current screening capacity;
Impact to security effectiveness and efficiency, including
consideration of detection capabilities; and
Ability of operational staff and stakeholders to support the
initiative.
Sites are continually assessed and may be rotated to minimize
resource impacts and secure a representative sample of the field
environment.
automated screening lanes
ITF's first innovation solution was Automated Screening Lanes
(ASLs) demonstrated at Atlanta-Hartsfield Jackson Airport (ATL). In
less than 9 weeks, the ITF established ATL as an innovation site and
demonstrated ASLs in partnership with Delta Air Lines. ASLs augment
existing X-ray screening technology for carry-on baggage and include
multiple divestiture stations, enhanced bin tracking and data
capabilities, and automated bin returns. TSA, airports, airlines,
vendors, and travelers have recognized ASLs as ground-breaking in
advancing security effectiveness, increasing throughput, and improving
the passenger experience.
Taking into account the recent terror attacks on public airport
areas that took place at Brussels, Los Angeles, and Fort Lauderdale,
ASLs provide TSA the capability to address long-held concerns regarding
crowding in the public areas. ASLs assist in the security of public
areas by increasing checkpoint throughput and reducing the number of
individuals waiting in line. In September 2016, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) approved an Urgent Operational Need (UON)
justification which authorizes the deployment of up to 220 ASLs at 21
specified airports by January 31, 2018. While the UON authorizes 220
ASLs, deployment at this scale is contingent upon TSA establishing
partnerships with stakeholders for additional lane deployments.
After the demonstrated success of the ASLs in Atlanta and after the
DHS approval of the UON, TSA partnered with additional airlines and
airports to deploy the capability at 25 lanes at 4 airports by the
close of calendar year 2016. Since the start of 2017, we have deployed
23 additional ASLs at these airports, bringing the total to 48. TSA and
our partners deployed 17 of these lanes earlier this month at Newark
Liberty International Airport in what was our largest single ASL
deployment to date. In addition to Atlanta-Hartsfield and Newark, ASL's
are operational at, Los Angeles, and Chicago-O'Hare International
Airports. These efforts are paying measurable dividends in
effectiveness, efficiency, and even employee morale.
other itf technologies
While ASLs were the ITF's first demonstrated technology solution,
they are not our only planned demonstration. The ITF continues to
expand to explore new solutions through temporary demonstrations at
airports Nation-wide.
One such new technology involves utilization of computed tomography
(CT) to screen carry-on baggage and accessible property. CT, a mainstay
for checked baggage screening, utilizes 3D-imaging and detection
software to help operators automatically identify threats and may
eliminate the need for divestiture of electronics and liquids for
passenger accessible property screening. The demonstration for CT is
planned for June of this year at Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport.
ITF's Biometric Authentication Technology (BAT) proof of concept
unit uses contact or contactless fingerprint scanning to verify TSA
PreCheck passenger identity. In the long term, BAT could automate the
Ticket Document Checker (TDC) process by verifying passenger identity
and Secure Flight vetting status, eliminating the need for a boarding
pass, and grant or deny access to passengers via an electronic gate to
the security checkpoint. The proof of concept will compare the
passenger's fingerprint to the fingerprint the passenger provided to
TSA during TSA PreCheck enrollment. BAT will be demonstrated initially
at Denver International Airport and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport for proof of concept testing before the end of
the fiscal year.
Additionally, ITF's Passenger Communications initiative streamlines
checkpoint operations by presenting passengers with an avatar
discussing various procedures such as divesting of carry-on property.
TSA is working with airports and terminal operators to demonstrate a
variety of passenger communication tools and techniques and provide
data for future checkpoint enhancements and designs. TSA plans to
demonstrate Passenger Communications by July 2017 at Atlanta-Hartsfield
and Newark.
In an effort to improve our understanding of existing market
capabilities, TSA issued a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) in July 2016
following a June 2016 industry day. TSA received 81 responses and
completed over 200 technical reviews with over 30 reviewers from across
TSA and the DHS enterprise. Fifty-two percent of the solutions
submitted had not been previously deployed domestically or
internationally. TSA selected eight of these technologies to
potentially join the portfolio of ITF solutions, and referred two
solutions to airports for further consideration. Planning activities
for these eight technologies are under way. Additionally, TSA plans to
release the second innovation-related BAA in May 2017 highlighting
specific areas of interest to include mobile screening, queuing and
passenger flow, and new detection capabilities.
To be clear, the ITF does not provide a shortcut around traditional
DHS acquisition processes. While data gathered from ITF demonstrations
may be used to inform manufacturers in the design and preparation of
their prototype units for testing at the DHS Transportation Security
Laboratory and TSA Systems Integration Facility (TSIF), as well as to
inform TSA in developing future technology requirements, technologies
that are ITF solutions which involve passenger safety and security
still need to go through appropriate rigorous testing at these
respective facilities as required under standard acquisition processes
before becoming a program of record. These processes ensure that before
fully investing in a technology, we know it will enhance transportation
security, reduce the risk to the traveling public, and function
properly in an operational environment.
conclusion
The ITF is focused on taking a fresh look at the entire aviation
security system. We are working with public and private partners to
provide a platform for Government, industry, and stakeholders to gather
requirements for new approaches to transportation security and
accelerate the development and deployment of new technologies and
improvements to operations.
I would like to conclude by offering you all the opportunity to
visit the TSIF, located nearby at Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport, to see these ITF technologies in action first-hand. I would
also like to thank the subcommittee for its continued support of the
ITF, and our airline and airport partners whose support makes this
endeavor possible. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Karoly. Your first time
testifying and you got within 8 seconds of the time limit. That
is pretty darn good, so I thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Roosevelt Council for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROOSEVELT COUNCIL JR., GENERAL MANAGER,
HARTSFIELD-JACKSON ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DEPARTMENT OF
AVIATION, CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Mr. Council. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and Members
of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing, and
let me express my sincerest gratitude for once again including
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in your
discussions.
So as you are well aware, Hartsfield-Jackson is the world's
busiest airport. In 2015 we become the first airport ever to
host more than 100 million passengers in a single year; and in
2016 we welcomed even more, topping 104 million passengers.
So to provide some perspective, that is more than 280,000
passengers, on average, that navigates themselves through our
airport each and every day. In 2016 more than 17 million
passengers underwent TSA screening at our airport, so that is
nearly about 47,000 daily passengers on average going through
security screening each day.
Stories of long security lines made National headlines in
2015 and 2016. At Hartsfield-Jackson wait times exceeding 35
minutes were not uncommon during this time period.
To ease congestion while keeping safety and security at the
forefront, we worked with TSA and the airlines to ramp up
staffing, open lanes earlier in the day, and increase the use
of canine teams. In addition, we introduced automated screening
lanes, commonly known as smart lanes, which is the subject of
today's hearing.
Hartsfield-Jackson was the first airport in the Nation to
test these smart lanes as part of a pilot program in which we
partnered with Delta Air Lines, the Transportation Security
Administration, and the city of Atlanta. These smart lanes are
modeled after a system used at London's Heathrow Airport.
Construction on two smart lanes began May 4, 2016 at our
south security checkpoint in our domestic terminal. Both were
fully operational by May 26.
So for Hartsfield-Jackson smart lanes supported three
primary objectives.
The first objective was to strengthen security. Smart lanes
have a dual exit belt from the X-ray machine. If a bag sets off
an alarm it is diverted to an alternate belt for inspection.
The owner of the bag does not have access to the diverted bag.
The second objective was to increase operational
efficiencies. Smart lanes reduce passenger wait time. Plus, the
technology, particularly the automated bin return, eases the
manual work performed by TSA agents, who traditionally shuffle
bins to the front of the line throughout the day. In addition,
these lanes allow up to five people to divest for screening at
the same time, which is more efficient than the single-file
queues at most screening checkpoints.
The third objective was to improve the passenger
experience. The smart lanes' five individual stations enable
passengers to place items in the bins at their own pace. In
effect, this set-up keeps slower passengers from holding up the
line. Plus, the bins use a tracking system so passengers do not
have to wait to go through the body scanners at the same time
as their bags. After passengers pick up their bags the bins
automatically return to the start of the line.
As I said, we opened our first two smart lanes in the
spring of 2016. From our initial observation, those lanes
proved successful, safely and efficiently increasing passenger
throughput by as much as 30 percent.
This is an important stat when you are talking about
reducing wait time and eliminating bottlenecks. A standard
security lane can screen, on average, 160 passengers per hour;
a smart lane can screen, on average, 208 passengers per hour.
During busy travel periods like the Fourth of July and
Thanksgiving, such expedited screening can make the difference
between a 30-minute--35-minute wait time and an under-20-minute
wait, which is Hartsfield-Jackson's overall goal for security
screening.
Based on the success of these two pilot smart lanes, we
decided to move forward with purchasing additional smart lanes
to install in our domestic terminal. It is important to mention
that in our domestic terminal we have three security
checkpoints: Domestic south, with four lanes; domestic north,
with five lanes; and domestic main, with 18 lanes. So that is a
total of 27 security lanes.
Beyond the existing smart--two existing smart lanes, our
goal was to add 20 more, converting the majority of the
standard lanes. That would bring us to 22 smart lanes out of 27
security lanes total. The north checkpoint would have four
smart lanes, south would have three, and the main would have
15.
Our initial two smart lanes were funded by a $1 million
investment from Delta Air Lines. Hartsfield-Jackson purchased
the additional 20 lanes with airport dollars. That expenditure
totaled $12.5 million.
I should also point out that for the most part U.S.
airports are not funding these smart lanes themselves, but
relying on airlines to foot most of the bill. However, given
the vast amount of O&D traffic at Hartsfield-Jackson, combined
with the efficiency from the pilot smart lanes, we saw
advantages early on and, of course, we were encouraged by
Delta's initial investment.
Over the past year we have phased in the installation of 20
smart lanes to minimize operational disruption to our passenger
and maintain overall screening capacity. We contracted with
equipment-provider MacDonald Douglas and we worked with the
company to make adjustment to our checkpoints to accommodate
the smart lanes.
Smart lanes are roughly 52 feet long. I am sorry, standard
lanes are roughly 52 feet long. Smart lanes require an
additional 25 feet of space. So there is a sizable footprint to
this equipment.
So we began the electrical work in October 2016, and in
November we installed one lane at the domestic south, and in
December we installed two lanes at the domestic north. Starting
in January we staggered the installation of 15 smart lanes at
domestic main and two additional lanes at domestic south.
So we set a deadline of May of this year to complete
installation of the 20 smart lanes, and we found out last night
that all lanes are now completed and they have been certified
by TSA and is now actually in use as of today.
Of course, we were mindful of how the installation would
impact our customers, so each phase took into consideration
several things: First, that our PreCheck lanes would flex to
ensure that at a minimum four lanes remained open throughout
the construction time line; second, we made sure all lanes not
under construction could be staffed if needed.
So now that all 22 lanes have been installed, I want to
offer a few observations.
First, it is clear that smart lanes speed passenger
processing. We have seen that in action.
But I should mentioned two important caveats. First, these
smart lanes have been with us just shy of 1 year, so their
performance over time will be the true measure of success. But
based on initial findings, we are pleased with the results.
The second caveat is that a learning curve exists for
passengers who are unfamiliar with the technology. However, we
are confident that in time people will understand the process
and enjoy the convenience and time savings.
The second observation is that it is clear that automation
benefits both TSA and the airport. The automated bin system has
relieved TSA agents of manual work involving the bins, but the
smart lanes themselves have also provided security
enhancements. If a suspicious bag is detected it is kept
secured from passengers without holding up the line.
The final observation is that clear lanes may help propel
our airport's long-term growth. As I mentioned earlier, this
airport welcomed 104 million passengers in 2016. That is a 2.6
percent increase over 2015, and we expect our passenger count
to continue to climb this year and beyond.
So these smart lanes, combined with the renovation,
modernization, and expansion of our facilities as part of our
20-year capital improvement program, will prove useful as we
grow our operations to meet passenger demand well into the
future.
Now, I should also mention that while Hartsfield-Jackson
has been the pioneer on testing smart lanes, as earlier
mentioned, other airports have also jumped on board.
Hartsfield-Jackson's pioneering efforts are due in no large
part to strong working relationships we have cultivated over
the years with our stakeholders, particularly TSA.
I want to express our team's gratitude to Atlanta's TSA
Federal Security Director Mary Leftridge Byrd for the
remarkable job she and her team do each day to ensure passenger
safety and security while trying to achieve exemplary customer
service. The world's busiest airport appreciates its cohesive
and respectful relationship with TSA in order to achieve these
successful operations on a daily basis.
So in closing, while it is too early to fully assess the
strength and weaknesses of smart lanes, our findings over the
past year have shown positive results when it comes to
enhancing safety, accelerating passenger processing, increasing
operational efficiency, and improving the customer experience.
So once again, I would like to thank this body for the
opportunity to address this very important issue at this time.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Council follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roosevelt Council, Jr.
April 27, 2017
Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing. And let me express my
sincerest gratitude for once again including Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport in your discussions.
As you are well aware, Hartsfield-Jackson is the world's busiest
airport. In 2015, we became the first airport ever to host more than
100 million passengers in a single year. And in 2016, we welcomed even
more, topping 104 million passengers. To provide some perspective,
that's more than 280,000 passengers, on average, navigating through the
airport each and every day.
In 2016, more than 17 million passengers underwent TSA security
screening at our airport. That's nearly 47,000 daily passengers, on
average, going through security screening each day.
Stories of long security lines made National headlines in 2015 and
2016. At Hartsfield-Jackson, wait times exceeding 35 minutes were not
uncommon during this time period. To ease congestion while keeping
safety and security at the forefront, we worked with TSA and the
airlines to ramp up staffing, open lanes earlier in the day and
increase the use of K-9 teams.
In addition, we introduced Automated Screening Lanes, commonly
known as Smart Lanes, which is the subject of today's hearing.
Hartsfield-Jackson was the first airport in the Nation to test
these Smart Lanes as part of a pilot program in which we partnered with
Delta Air Lines, the Transportation Security Administration and the
city of Atlanta. These Smart Lanes are modeled after a system used at
London Heathrow Airport.
Construction on two Smart Lanes began May 4, 2016, at our South
Security checkpoint in our Domestic Terminal. Both were fully
operational by May 26.
For Hartsfield-Jackson, Smart Lanes supported three primary
objectives:
The first objective: to strengthen security.--Smart Lanes
have a dual exit belt from the X-ray machine. If a bag sets off
an alarm, it is diverted to an alternate belt for inspection.
The owner of the bag does not have access to the diverted bag.
The second objective: to increase operational
efficiencies.--Smart Lanes reduce passenger wait times. Plus,
the technology, particularly the automatic bin return, eases
the manual work performed by TSA agents, who traditionally
shuffle bins to the front of the line throughout the day. In
addition, these lanes allow up to five passengers to divest for
screening at the same time, which is more efficient than
single-file queues at most screening checkpoints.
The third objective: to improve the passenger experience.--
The Smart Lanes' five individual stations enable passengers to
place items in the bins at their own pace. In effect, this set-
up keeps slower passengers from holding up the line. Plus, the
bins use a tracking mechanism so passengers do not have to wait
to go through the body scanner at the same time as their bags.
After passengers pick up their bags, the bins automatically
return to the start of the line.
As I said, we opened our first two Smart Lanes in the spring of
2016. From our initial observations, those lanes proved successful,
safely and efficiently speeding passenger throughput by as much as 30
percent. This is an important statistic when you're talking about
reducing wait times and eliminating bottlenecks.
A standard security lane can screen, on average, 160 passengers per
hour. A Smart Lane can screen, on average, 208 passengers per hour.
During busy travel periods--like the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving--
such expedited screening can make the difference between a 35-minute
wait and an under 20-minute wait, which is Hartsfield-Jackson's overall
goal for security screening.
Based on the success of our two pilot Smart Lanes, we decided to
move forward with purchasing additional Smart Lanes to install in our
Domestic Terminal.
It is important to mention that in our Domestic Terminal, we have
three security checkpoints: Domestic South with four lanes; Domestic
North with five lanes; and Domestic Main with 18 lanes. That's 27
security lanes total.
Beyond the two existing Smart Lanes, our goal was to add 20 more,
converting the majority of the standard lanes. That would bring us to
22 Smart Lanes out of 27 security lanes total. The North checkpoint
would have four Smart Lanes, South would have three, and Main would
have 15.
Our initial two Smart Lanes were funded by a $1 million investment
from Delta Air Lines. Hartsfield-Jackson purchased the additional 20
lanes with airport dollars. That expenditure totaled about $12.5
million. I should point out that, for the most part, U.S. airports are
not funding these Smart Lanes themselves, but relying on airlines to
foot the bill. However, given the vast amount of Origin and Destination
traffic at Hartsfield-Jackson--combined with the efficiency from the
pilot Smart Lanes program--we saw advantages early on and, of course,
we were encouraged by Delta's initial investment.
Over the past year, we have phased in the installation of 20 Smart
Lanes to minimize operational disruption to our passengers and maintain
overall screening capacity.
We contracted with equipment provider MacDonald-Humphrey, and we
worked with the company to make adjustments to our checkpoints to
accommodate the Smart Lanes. Standard lanes are roughly 52 feet long.
Smart lanes require an additional 25 feet of space, so there is a
sizable footprint to this equipment.
We began the electrical work in October 16. Then in November, we
installed one lane at Domestic South. And in December, we installed two
lanes at Domestic North. Starting in January of this year, we staggered
the installation of 15 Smart Lanes at Domestic Main and two additional
lanes at Domestic North. We set a deadline of May of this year to
complete installation of the 20 Smart Lanes, and I was told last week
that we are ahead of schedule for the busy Memorial Day weekend travel.
Of course, we were mindful of how the installation would impact our
customers. So each phase took into consideration several things: First,
that our PreCheck lanes would ``flex'' to ensure that, at a minimum,
four lanes remained open throughout the construction time line. Second,
we made sure all lanes not under construction could be staffed if
needed.
So now that 19 of 22 Smart Lanes have been installed and are in
use, I want to offer a few observations:
First, it's clear that Smart Lanes speed passenger
processing.--We've seen that in action. But I should mention
two important caveats: First, these Smart Lanes have been with
us just shy of 1 year, so their performance over time will be
the true measure of success. But based on our initial findings,
we are pleased with the results. The second caveat is this: A
learning curve exists for passengers who are unfamiliar with
the technology. However, we are confident that, in time, people
will understand the process and enjoy the convenience and time
savings.
Second, it's clear that automation benefits both TSA and the
airport.--The automated bin system has relieved TSA agents of
manual work involving the bins. But the Smart Lanes themselves
have also provided security enhancements. If a suspicious bag
is detected, it is kept secured from passengers without holding
up the line.
Third, it's clear that Smart Lanes may help propel our long-
term growth.--As I mentioned earlier, this airport welcomed 104
million passengers in 2016. That's a 2.6 percent increase over
our 2015 numbers. And we expect our passenger counts to
continue climbing this year and beyond. So these Smart Lanes--
combined with the renovation, modernization, and expansion of
our facilities as part of our 20-year capital improvement
program--will prove useful as we grow our operations to meet
passenger demand well into the future.
I should also mention that while Hartsfield-Jackson has been the
pioneer on testing these Smart Lanes, other airports have jumped on
board. These airports include LAX, Chicago's O'Hare, Newark, and
Dallas-Fort Worth.
Hartsfield-Jackson's pioneering efforts are due, in no small part,
to strong working relationships we have cultivated with our
stakeholders, particularly TSA. I want to express our team's gratitude
to TSA Federal Security Director Mary Leftridge Byrd for the remarkable
job she and her team do each day to ensure passenger safety and
security while trying to achieve exemplary customer service. The
world's busiest airport appreciates its cohesive and respectful
relationship with TSA to achieve successful operations on a daily
basis.
In closing, while it's too early to fully assess the strengths and
weaknesses of Smart Lanes, our findings over the past year have shown
positive results when it comes to enhancing safety, accelerating
passenger processing, increasing operational efficiencies and improving
the customer experience.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address this body.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Council, for your testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Olivier for her testimony.
STATEMENT OF JEANNE M. OLIVIER, A.A.E., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
AVIATION SECURITY AND TECHNOLOGY, SECURITY OPERATIONS AND
PROGRAMS DEPARTMENT, THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW
JERSEY
Ms. Olivier. Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman,
and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to discuss the checkpoint of the future and TSA's Innovation
Task Force.
As assistant director of aviation security and technology
for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey I oversee
security operations for John F. Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Stewart
International Airports in New York, and Newark Liberty
International Airport in New Jersey.
There are, as you have heard, currently 17 automated
screening lanes deployed at Newark. Deployments are also
underway at Kennedy Airport, expected to be completed somewhat
in--toward the end of May.
United Airlines purchased the automated screening equipment
and paid for the necessary reconfiguration of the checkpoint at
Newark Airport. The Port Authority appreciates, certainly, the
investment that United was willing to make to provide these
lanes.
The lanes have been well-received by our passengers at
Newark and we have seen an increase in the throughput at the
TSA security checkpoint, which has helped to maintain
reasonable wait times and reduce congestion in the public
queuing area. It is important to note, however, that although
throughput has increased as a result of the automated screening
lanes, the number of transportation security officers needed to
effectively screen passengers has not been reduced.
The lanes funded by Newark--by United at Newark were
proposed at a time of crisis when TSA was unable to meet the
surging passenger demand last spring and summer due to
insufficient TSA personnel and resources. Fortunately, Congress
was able to authorize additional funding for TSA personnel,
overtime, and canine deployments.
I would like to pause right here and say, Mr. Chairman, we
appreciate the significant focus you and the committee
dedicated to the checkpoint improvements last year. We could
not have gotten through that without you.
We cannot neglect or cut back on the TSA resources needed
today to maintain effective and efficient screening operations
for passengers and baggage at airports across the country.
Innovation and technology investments must be made in addition
to the staffing levels needed to accommodate the significant
growth in travel.
Newark alone has grown by 10 percent this year to date over
last year.
While responsibility for passenger and baggage screening
are by law the sole responsibility of the TSA, airports, of
course, play a critical role in partnering with the agency to
help it meet its core mission. Since last spring airports and
air carriers have provided and continue to provide significant
support for non-security functions and technology deployment at
TSA security checkpoints. The recent smooth and relatively
seamless spring break travel this year highlights the
effectiveness of this on-going partnership.
However, airport and air carrier resources are not infinite
and private industry cannot and should not be made responsible
for funding TSA's primary and fundamental responsibility for
screening passengers and baggage effectively and efficiently.
Federal funding resources are vital to ensure the long-term
sustainability of TSA's Innovation Task Force.
The Port Authority and airports across the country welcome
the opportunity to partner directly with TSA on additional
agile and innovative solutions. We are eager to assist TSA
and--with operational testing to ensure that innovative
technologies or processes work effectively and do not
inadvertently slow down passenger screening.
We also look forward to a checkpoint of the future that
does not require people to divest shoes, coats, laptops, and
might even allow them once again to carry food and beverages
through the checkpoint.
As public entities, airports, just like the TSA, have
public safety and security as their key mission. Just like the
Federal Government, we need the flexibility and resources to
spur innovative solutions that meet or exceed current security
requirements. Local funding resources, like the passenger
facility charge, can provide the resources necessary to
facilitate investments at the local level to further enhance
the myriad of airport security responsibilities.
In conclusion, the Port Authority and airport operators
across the country support the Innovation Task Force and look
forward to helping test innovative solutions. Federal funding
is key to the long-term success of the Innovation Task Force.
The Innovation Task Force efforts must be on top of
adequate staffing, canines, and other TSA resources needed to
maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the checkpoint of
today.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Olivier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeanne M. Olivier, A.A.E.
April 27, 2017
Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the checkpoint
of the future and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's
collaboration with the Transportation Security Administration and its
Innovation Task Force. I currently serve as assistant director,
aviation security and technology for the Security Operations and
Programs Department of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
In this capacity, I oversee security operations for New York's John F.
Kennedy International, LaGuardia, and Stewart International airports
and for Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey. I am also
the second vice chair of the American Association of Airport
Executives, which represents thousands of men and women across the
country who manage and operate the Nation's airports.
The Port Authority's airport system served a combined 129.4 million
passengers in 2016. Specifically, Newark Liberty International
processed 40.4 million, John F. Kennedy International hosted 58.9
million, LaGuardia greeted 29.8 million, and Stewart International
served 275,000. Newark's share of the NY/NJ area airport system
passengers is 31.2 percent. It offers non-stop air service to more than
165 destinations aboard dozens of air carriers. Newark Liberty has an
enormous economic impact on the region, responsible for: About 188,089
jobs, $9.9 billion in annual wages, and $27.2 billion in annual sales.
Traffic at Newark Liberty is projected to grow by 5 percent in 2017,
however, we have already seen an amazing actual growth of 10 percent
this year to date over last year, far exceeding the National average of
2 to 4 percent traffic growth projected by the Federal Aviation
Administration. Nation-wide, TSA anticipates a 4 percent growth in
passenger volume and expects to screen 228 million passengers between
Memorial Day and Labor Day compared to 217 million passengers last
summer. Thus, effective and efficient passenger screening is very
important for our successful operation and service to travelers.
Terminal C, operated solely by United Airlines, at Newark Liberty
International Airport accounts for 57 percent of the airport's
passenger volume, or 23.1 million travelers last year. There are
currently 17 Automated Screening Lanes (ASL) deployed at Newark Liberty
International Airport at the Terminal C checkpoint. The first of the
lanes were installed in November 2016. United Airlines purchased the
ASL equipment and paid for the necessary reconfiguration of the
checkpoint area.
The new automated screening lanes offer several features that
automate many of the functions previously conducted manually, which
allows travelers to move more swiftly and efficiently through the
checkpoint. These innovations include:
Stainless steel countertops that were constructed to enable
several passengers to place their items in bins simultaneously;
Automated conveyor belts that draw bins into the X-ray
machines, and return the bins back to the front of the queue
for passengers;
Carry-on bags that trigger an alarm warning of a potential
threat are automatically pushed to a separate area to allow
bins behind to continue through the screening process
uninterrupted;
Property bins that are 25 percent larger than the bins in
standard screening lanes and large enough to hold roller bags;
Unique Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags that are
attached to each bin to allow for additional accountability of
a traveler's items as they transit throughout the security
process; and
Cameras that capture photographic images of the contents of
each bin, which are linked side-by-side to the X-ray image of a
bag's contents.
The lanes have been well received by passengers at Newark Liberty
and have been working as intended. We have seen an increase in
passenger throughput at the TSA security checkpoint, which has helped
to maintain reasonable wait times and reduce congestion in the public
queuing area. The PANYNJ appreciates the investment that United was
willing to make to provide these lanes as faster throughput and reduced
congestion improves the passenger experience and reduces
vulnerabilities in the public area.
Although the ASLs get travelers through the TSA screening
checkpoint at a faster pace, it is our understanding that they do not
reduce the number of Transportation Security Officers needed to
effectively screen passengers. TSA is currently conducting a detailed
data collection covering all key checkpoint activity, including
detection and alarm rates, throughput, operations, maintenance, optimal
configurations and staffing ratios, at the four airports where
automated screening lanes are currently deployed. We encourage TSA to
carefully analyze the data before making any staffing allocation
decisions or changes to its resource allocation model. The improvements
provided by the ASLs would be quickly negated by a premature or short-
sighted reduction of TSA screening personnel.
The ASLs funded by United at Newark Liberty were launched at a time
of crisis when TSA was unable to meet the surging passenger demand last
spring and summer due to insufficient TSA personnel and resources.
Fortunately, Congress was able to authorize additional funding for TSA
personnel, overtime, and canine deployments. It is vital that TSA
receives the funding levels necessary to continue to ensure adequate
TSO levels, canines, and other resources to maintain checkpoint
efficiency.
At the same time, airport operators and air carriers joined in
partnership with TSA to provide contract personnel to cover non-
security functions at the checkpoint in addition to the investments
made in automated screening lanes. Airport and air carrier support of
TSA checkpoint operations continue today, and the reasonable wait times
across the country during the recent spring break travel season
highlights the effectiveness of this on-going partnership. However,
airport and air carrier resources are not infinite, and private
industry cannot and should not be made responsible for funding TSA's
primary and fundamental responsibility for screening passengers and
baggage effectively and efficiently.
Federal funding resources are vital to ensure the long-term
sustainability of TSA's Innovation Task Force. Additionally, Federal
funding resources will allow TSA to make investments solely on the
merits of an innovative technology or process without the bias of
competitive advantage factors inherent in private-sector funding
decisions.
In addition to enhancing the passenger experience at airports
through investments in ASLs and other technology, Federal funding holds
the potential to spur further technological and process innovations to
fundamentally change checkpoint screening operating procedures.
Possible enhancements include allowing passengers to pass through the
checkpoint without stopping, taking off shoes or removing laptops from
bags, carrying beverages and food while at the same time improving
security and detection. As these technologies are developed, airports
are eager to assist TSA with operational testing to ensure that these
innovations work effectively in a challenging airport environment and
do not inadvertently slow down passenger processing.
TSA's expedited screening program, PreCheck, provides a glimpse
into the possibilities of a checkpoint of the future. The complementary
program currently allows vetted and other eligible passengers to keep
on their shoes and lightweight jackets and leave laptops and allowed
liquids in their carry-on baggage. Unfortunately, PreCheck, as a
Government-run procurement program, is not living up to its full
potential.
Although TSA continues to slowly grow participation in the program,
the PreCheck enrollment process is cumbersome, and enrollment options
are severely limited. The private sector and industry stakeholders,
including airport operators, have presented and advocated for
innovative solutions that would increase participation in the PreCheck
program and achieve the robust, critical mass levels originally
envisioned for the program. TSA needs to follow the direction mandated
by Congress in the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016 to
``publish application enrollment standards that add multiple private-
sector application capabilities for the PreCheck program to increase
the public's enrollment access to such program.'' We hope that TSA will
soon follow the direction of Congress to coordinate with interested
parties to deploy TSA-approved ready-to-market private sector
solutions; partner with the private sector to use kiosks, mobile
devices or other mobile enrollment platforms to make enrollment easier;
and, consider leveraging existing resources and abilities at airports
to conduct fingerprint and background checks.
While responsibility for passenger and baggage screening are by law
the sole responsibility of TSA, airports play an essential role in
partnering with the agency to help it meet its core mission. The PANYNJ
looks forward to continuing to partner with TSA to ensure effective,
efficient, and innovative security operations for the screening of
passengers and baggage.
In addition to working with the TSA to meet its passenger and
baggage screening mandates, airports perform a number of inherently
local security-related functions at their facilities, including
incident response and management, perimeter security, employee
credentialing, access control, infrastructure and operations planning,
and numerous local law enforcement and public safety functions.
Airport operators--just like the Federal Government--need the
flexibility and resources to spur innovative solutions that meet or
exceed current security requirements. Local funding sources, like the
Passenger Facility Charge, can provide the resources necessary to
facilitate innovation and technology investment at the local level to
further enhance the myriad of airport security responsibilities.
The PANYNJ and airport operators across the country support the
TSA's Innovation Task Force (ITF) efforts and look forward to more
opportunities for direct partnership and engagement to test innovative
solutions at the passenger checkpoint and throughout the airport
environment. We hope that TSA's ITF can be sustainable for the long-
term and enable the agency to be agile in its investment and deployment
decisions. Agility is key to staying ahead of evolving threats to
aviation, which continues to be a prime target for terrorists. Again,
Federal funding for the ITF will be necessary to ensure TSA has the
ability to work with all interested industry partners, including
airport operators, and can focus on innovations that have the potential
to fundamentally change the screening process.
In the mean time, we cannot neglect or cut back on the TSA
personnel, canines, and other resources needed today to maintain
effective and efficient screening operations for passengers and baggage
at airports across the country. Innovation and technology investment
must be made in addition to the staffing levels needed to accommodate
the significant growth in air travel.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. As public agents, the
PANYNJ and my airport colleagues across the country take our security
mission very seriously. We welcome the opportunity to partner with TSA
to introduce new and innovative approaches to enhancing security
throughout the airport environment.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Ms. Olivier.
Thank you for your kind words about the collaborative
effort we had last summer to deal with a crisis with
checkpoints. You know, no one person takes credit for it. It
was a team effort and we all, private sector and public sector
worked together and solved the problem.
What a concept, everybody working together, right? So I
think that is a good thing and we will continue to do that
moving forward. That is, indeed, the goal of this committee.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. But
before I do that I will note votes were just called, so after
my questions we will suspend until after votes. Sorry to keep
you here longer, but that is how it goes.
Now, Mr. Karoly, I appreciate your testimony and I want to
talk to you in a moment about the ITF and how we can make it
better.
I just want to note, Mr. Council, for you that if I don't
get to you in the first round of questions I most definitely
will get to you in the second round because I want to talk to
you a little bit more about what Atlanta is doing with respect
to employee screening.
So first of all, with respect to the task force, I know,
Mr. Karoly, that you have been heavily involved in looking at
the automated screening lanes. Is that correct?
Mr. Karoly. Yes, sir. It is one of our initiatives.
Mr. Katko. OK. How long have you had the screening lanes up
and moving?
Mr. Karoly. So we started this endeavor, again, with
Atlanta and Delta Air Lines back in April. It was a 9-week
effort and we were able to deploy that by Memorial Day of 2016.
Mr. Katko. OK. Is it only one airport they are being tested
at or is it Nation-wide?
Mr. Karoly. So we are testing them Nation-wide. We have,
again, 51 ASL lanes and we are assessing each of those lanes,
or the manufacturers, at various airports.
Mr. Katko. OK. Then the second thing is upcoming
demonstrations that haven't come on-line yet are the computed
tomography, or basically 3-D scanners?
Mr. Karoly. Yes, sir. It is the C.T. at the checkpoint, if
you will.
Mr. Katko. Right. Are they up and going yet, or no?
Mr. Karoly. So we have tested them at the Transportation
Security Lab in New Jersey for--to meet the detection standard,
which two of the three have passed. We also have tested in the
TSIF two of the three to go through we will say initial
operational checks.
Right now they are working on one last change, if you will,
to their software, and we will be deploying those: One to
Phoenix Airport in the next 2 weeks if all goes well with the
computer check, and then the other one either in Boston and/or
Chicago.
Mr. Katko. The third component I understand you are looking
at--and we are--I am excited about all of it, but I am
particularly excited about the use of biometrics and the
biometric authentication technology, which is really one
component of some of the advancing technologies out there. Have
you done anything with the biometric authentication technology
yet?
Mr. Karoly. Yes, sir. It is presently in our Transportation
Security Integration Facility going through some assessment
before getting it out to the field for initial deployment for a
pilot demonstration. We expect to get it out this summer if all
goes well, and that is a biometric fingerprint collection
technology, if you will.
Mr. Katko. Now, is it fair to say that if the resources
were better allocated to the task force that you might be able
to get more of this technology out in a more expedited manner?
Mr. Karoly. Sir, I guess as a systems engineer and
acquisition professional I would say in a unconstrained
environment we could always do more if we were to receive more.
But obviously we are in a fiscally constrained environment and
as long as the ITF receives funding as documented in the
President's budget, I believe we can execute our mission in
2018.
Mr. Katko. OK.
Now, of course we have to watch the budget. We have a
terrible deficit.
But there is also--I know this is shocking so I am glad you
are sitting down when I say this--but there are areas where
agencies could find some waste and reallocate resources or
reprioritize resources. When it comes to protecting the public
and especially with respect to aviation, I think that is of
paramount importance, and so getting the new and innovative
products tested and to market, if you will, and on the front
lines doing what they are intended to do quicker, I don't think
we can dedicate enough resources to that.
So do you have any idea of what type of things you could do
if you had more resources? Can you tell us what those resources
are that you would need?
Mr. Karoly. In an unconstrained environment, sir, I would
think that I would focus--again, I would really have to think
back how it ties together, but I would focus on functional
areas.
So in other words, I think I would--we are doing planning
and strategy today; I would do more planning and strategy for
other initiatives. We are doing testing and assessment today; I
would do more testing and assessment for other technologies.
Additionally, we dedicate some funds to our broad agency
announcement, focusing on small businesses who can't actually
fund maybe their assessments to an airport. So we would fund
that travel. I would look at increasing that area.
Last, systems integration across the board as we integrate
these systems into the field.
Mr. Katko. OK. Do you have any idea of the amount of
personnel you would need to do that, or the additional
personnel and additional resources in order to achieve that
goal?
Mr. Karoly. Today we have 14 FTE working for the Innovation
Task Force.
Mr. Katko. Nation-wide just 14?
Mr. Karoly. At the headquarters staff.
Mr. Katko. OK.
Mr. Karoly. But this is a big, again, as we always said,
public-private partnership. A lot of TSA personnel are
supporting it. Just the ITF staff themselves, but we work
within TSA getting human factors, getting training folks,
getting operation support folks.
So it is bigger than the 14, but your specific question was
for ITF-related directly.
Again, I would have to go back, but the vision of the final
operation capability of our organization within ORCA, our
Office of Requirements and Capabilities Analysis, was looking
at about 25 FTE for the Innovation Task Force.
Mr. Katko. OK. What I would like you to do--my time is up.
Before I do it, I would ask you to do is go back with your
folks and, you know, come up with a couple of different
scenarios whereby specifics with respect to personnel, and get
back to us within a few weeks as to what, you know, what we
could do to help really, truly turbocharge this task force
idea.
Because what we want to do is be able to get the
technologies, like I said, that is cutting-edge on the front
lines working as they are supposed to much quicker than we are
currently doing. One of the keys to that is Innovation Task
Force, and the public-private partnership component of this is
a wonderful idea and it is just--but it does things TSA has
done a long time.
So let's try and figure out a way to step it up. If you can
get back with a proposal within a week, or 2 weeks at the most,
I would very, very much appreciate it because we are going to
begin the authorization process, and I want to include this in
part of that process, OK?
Mr. Karoly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Katko. All right. Thank you.
Now, Mrs. Watson Coleman likes to be on time, and I am a
little bit different in that regard. So we are going to gavel
out and go upstairs and vote, and as soon as we are done with
votes I ask everybody to come back here and we will continue
with the hearing.
[Recess.]
Mr. Katko. The committee is back in session. I wanted to
apologize for the delay, but we don't keep the schedule on the
floor of the House, we just go when they tell us to go, as I
hope you understand.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mrs. Watson
Coleman, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Ms. Olivier, excuse me for messing up your
name. I just didn't look at it.
One of the things you indicated was that soon JFK was going
to have these smart lanes. Did I hear that correctly?
Ms. Olivier. Yes, Congresswoman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. My question is, who is paying for
them?
Ms. Olivier. The airlines.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. The airlines.
Ms. Olivier. Yes. So at Kennedy it is Delta for T-2 and T-4
and then American Airlines for T-8.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. OK.
So I guess, Mr. Karoly--did I say that right? Because I
think I messed your name up, too.
Mr. Karoly. You did, ma'am. All good.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Oh, good. Thank you. Thank you.
What are you doing about the airports that can't--that
don't have the kind of relationship with airlines, that don't
have an airline that is willing to install these? What is TSA's
role here, and what should we be expecting, and what would you
need?
Mr. Karoly. So right now, ma'am, we are under what we call
an urgent operational need authority, and that authority gave
us permission to go deploy these, working with our
stakeholders, to these 21 airports. So we are working with all
of those airports to figure out what best works for them at
this point in time.
So again, the airlines are negotiating, if you will, with
the airport authority, and the airport authority negotiating
with the airlines. Then once that initial engagement occurs
then TSA gets involved, if you will, to work together to
actually deploy these at those airports.
So I believe right now we don't need anything additional to
execute under that UON requirement.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So, but is this an assumption that TSA
won't have to actually use its financial resources to install
these in any airport, that you would only be responsible for
operation and maintenance?
Mr. Karoly. This summer, ma'am, we are going to go and
decide, using the data that we are getting now through the
assessments, to determine if this becomes a program of record
for TSA. So----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. A pardon-me of record?
Mr. Karoly. It is called a program of record, a real
acquisition program of record.
If it is determined through the data cost-benefit analysis
that it makes sense for us to--that--for it to become a program
of record, we will end up starting to procure these in the out
years, if you will. That is the plan.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I guess this is for both Ms. Olivier
and Mr. Council--and thank you, also, for being here. What has
been the most noticeable difference in your interactions with
TSA since the creation of the task force? How can Congress be
helpful as you try to keep moving your respective organizations
forward in improving both passenger services and security?
Mr. Council and, again, Ms. Olivier.
Mr. Council. Thank you, Congressman.
So we have somewhat of an outstanding relationship with our
TSA partners in Atlanta. You know, they have been on board the
whole way, especially when it comes to the smart lanes, you
know.
One condition that I think that I mentioned to you that
with the smart lanes TSA needed to own those lanes to be able
to operate them, OK? So we had to gift those lanes to TSA. Of
course, our stakeholder in Georgia allowed us to actually do
that, which I am assuming then will be the responsibility of
TSA to handle the operations and the maintenance of those.
So we have had to do that to get certified lanes for use.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Mr. Council. Yes.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So let me just ask you, Mr. Karoly, is
that your sort of understanding the way TSA--how it would
operate in that space? You would be responsible for owning
these lanes, operating them, and ensuring the maintenance of
them?
Mr. Karoly. Yes, ma'am. That is how it is working today,
that, again, of those that are deployed either the airlines or
airport would gift it to us and/or bail, which is another term
that they use.
But as part of the negotiation between the ASL manufacturer
and the airline or the airport there is a 2-year maintenance
warranty period, so that is covered under their initial costs.
Once that 2-year warranty period is up we, the Government, will
end up taking that maintenance at that point.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Olivier, do you have comments to this question?
If it is red it is on. Only here.
Ms. Olivier. Thank you.
Yes, Congresswoman. We do feel that we have a very good
working relationship with the local TSA as well as those
Nationally to promote innovative technologies, and we are
always eager to help pilot new activities.
I would say that our interaction at the National level for
the task force, that largely occurred between United and the
task force itself. But, of course, we then provide all of the
oversight for ensuring the equivalent of building code, you
know, correctness, and we have the security oversight during
the construction periods. Those things were all--engaged the
Port Authority resources.
Locally, both the TSA and the Port Authority, as well as
United, are very excited about the improvements in the
screening checkpoint.
I would caution the issue of maintenance, though. We have
noticed at all of our airports that if there is a weak link in
the chain it is that maintenance contract. While I have not--I
can't link that to the innovation lanes, I can link it--and
there are no secrets in this; we all know that there are some
issues with the Government contract to get the maintenance done
in a timely way and to have parts delivered in a very timely
way.
Local TSA folks are extremely creative if they have to
cannibalize parts from one machine to keep another one working,
but the actually delivery of parts is a problem. I think the
TSA needs some help and inspection in that contract.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. That is actually good
information for us to have.
I just have one quick question.
You all mentioned the fact that even with these smart lanes
that does not mean that there is going to be a need for less
TSA personnel. You also talked about the importance of canines
in ensuring safety and security.
So I am wondering if you have any thoughts about any budget
proposals that you have seen or heard about as it relates to
perhaps diminishing some of the resources and the capacity of
the TSA to provide those personnel and those canines. I would
like to ask both Mr. Council and Ms. Olivier to respond.
Mr. Council. For us, any reduction below the current level
will clearly have somewhat of an impact for us, mainly based on
the volume that we actually generate at Hartsfield-Jackson. But
we haven't seen that yet.
But if there is any kind of proposed reduction then, of
course, that means that we would have to work in collaboration
with our local TSA to see just what that means to us, alright,
because for now we are not looking just at managing the current
demand that we have. We know that our demand is actually going
up, alright, and we want to make sure that we are properly in
place with the amount of resources that is actually needed for
us to keep things going.
Again, understand for us that as soon as we can get people
through security and to get on the secure side then they become
less of a target, and we try to reduce that by minimizing the
wait times for most of our passengers.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
I don't know if you wanted to respond to that.
Ms. Olivier. I agree completely. We know that it is a
difficult time and that budgets are constrained, so we are very
sensitive to that.
But any diminution in the staffing for screeners at our
facilities we fear we are going to revisit March of last year.
We don't feel that we can lose that.
Just in terms of funding many of the initiatives, whether
it is the--going forward with the Innovation Task Force or
other aspects of these operations, obviously we are concerned
that there is an aviation security fee that is part of what
goes on a plane ticket and that those funds are currently being
used to, you know, cover the deficit--the Federal deficit--as
opposed to going to the TSA for use in things like innovation
and other screeners. So certainly we are concerned about that.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
I just want to mention, Olivia, I hope this has been a good
experience for you and you are proud of your father. Of course,
he has done so well in his appearance before us today.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Katko. Thank you.
The Chair will now recognize other Members of the
subcommittee for 5 minutes for questions they may wish to ask
the witnesses. In accordance with our committee rules and
practice, I plan to recognize Members who were present at the
start of the hearing by seniority on the subcommittee. Those
coming in later will be recognized in the order of their
arrival.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Higgins, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Council, I would like to advise you, sir, that I
traverse to your airport many, many, many times, and it is a
testament to your own management and your people that it is
much less stressful through the TSA screening lanes than it is
to get through the baggage checkpoint at Delta, so that is a
shift for sure. Congratulations.
Mr. Council. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Higgins. The use of canines, it has been proven again
and again that the canine dogs, well-trained with a canine
officer, are highly effective at detecting residue or the
presence of explosive materials or gunpowder. We have used them
effectively for many years in different aspects of securing our
country, including the military, of course, and law
enforcement.
You stated that the use of canines has been crucial to the
success of your own TSA screening. So I would ask you,
considering the sort of old-tech effectiveness of a canine and
a trained officer, and specifically regarding a PreCheck line
or perhaps in the future something beyond PreCheck--for
instance, frequent flyers and trusted travelers that are
perhaps Government employees that have already in possession of
a significant security clearance through the U.S. Government,
something perhaps that you may envision beyond a PreCheck
level, would not the use of an officer and a canine be enough
without the investment in technologies and whatnot to
completely screen a PreCheck customer, a flyer--frequent flyer,
someone that has been entrusted with some envisioned level of
PreCheck beyond what currently exists?
Mr. Council. So, Congressman, clearly the canines have been
a very useful tool for us, you know, and we try to use them as
expeditiously as we can. I think currently we have 10 canine
units.
What is so amazing about them is that--and what I have
learned is that, you know, that people oftentimes ask, you
know, why don't they see more? Well, it is because they can't
really work in close proximity to each other because it sort of
throws them off.
They are so sensitively and highly tuned to where it really
sort-of negates their ability to detect when they are in close
proximity to another canine. So it sort-of works in a certain
way.
You know, I would say that given the emergent threats that
seem to be almost on a constant basis, you know, I would think,
you know, that eliminating any kind of possible resource that
we have that could possibly detect anything, you know, would
be, you know, something that I think that we would have to be
careful with. You know, I can't really speak to maybe what TSA
would actually do when it comes to that, you know, which is
sort-of in their space about how they manage that. All the
canines are TSA canines.
You know, but from our perspective, you know, safety and
security, again, is first and foremost for us. So whatever gets
people through this airport safely and securely, then we are
all for it. We are all for it.
Mr. Higgins. We are on the same page. I bring it up, sir,
because in an airport during the course of my travels over the
last few months the backpack that I always carry was side-
barred for searching. I had left a can of Red Bull in there I
didn't know about--I had forgotten. So that needed to be
checked, obviously, and I understood that.
But during that process my backpack was swabbed. I can only
assume that would have been for gunpowder residue. Would that
be correct?
Mr. Council. I think TSA would probably----
Mr. Higgins. Swab would be put into----
Mr. Karoly. Yes, sir, for explosive trace.
Mr. Higgins. OK. Well, that technology did not work because
in that backpack on countless occasions I have carried firearms
and ammunition for a couple years in that backpack.
I think it is important as we move forward and we look at
technologies and consider technologies that sometimes old-
school works very well relative to new technologies, and
especially within this era of a $20 trillion debt, as we seek
to protect the people's treasure as we move forward in looking
at the best ways to manage our TSA systems and get our flyers
through the airport safely and on time.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
I would like to take the opportunity, since we don't have
many other people questioning today, just to do another around
of questions. I want to speak to Mr. Council and Ms. Olivier,
in particular.
In advance of the question, I encourage both of you to
speak frankly because we can't improve the ITF unless we have
frank discussions. So given the fact that getting the
technology to--from a testing phase to an operational phase is
so critically important, especially given the emerging threats,
which are pretty evident from what happened with--in overseas
airports, where we had--people can't even bring laptops on
planes. The bad guys are constantly evolving the threat matrix
and we need to respond in a more efficient and prompt manner.
So with that as a backdrop I ask you, what else should we
be doing with the ITF to make them better, make it more
efficient?
Mr. Council. So I think some of the things that you
mentioned, which is the biometric screening, you know, as well
as the C.T. scans, you know, they seem to have actually worked.
You know, there is a lot of new technology that is more
international in its concept, OK, that we don't deploy here.
So for the most part, you know, as we have communicated
with TSA, we are in favor of actually being a test bed for
anything that seems to be a new opportunity to us better
protect the passengers that we have that is coming through. You
know, and at any point we are to be willing to actually talk to
them about what is needed to actually get that done.
I think they have been very gracious on a lot of occasions
because of the amount of traffic that we have. You know, so I,
you know, I just think that from what I can see--I can only
talk about the things that have been introduced to us, which is
trying to do things that would allow us to try to protect
people before they get to the checkpoints, all right, you know,
and that is always the most serious part for us, you know, that
white space that we talk about between the front door when you
get out of your car on the curb and you get to the checkpoint
is the thing that actually--that is what our focus is when it
comes to security, and trying to make sure those people can get
to the secured side of the airport, which is behind TSA, you
know?
So, you know, I mean, any effort that actually allows us to
be able to do that--and we have taken steps ourselves, you
know, to ensure that. You know, we have been hyper-vigilant
when it comes to that area and trying to protect that area, you
know, and we constantly--it is always--we are always on the
lookout for things that can come about that can give us new
ideas in terms of how we can respond quickly, how we can
identify, and how we can prevent.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Council.
Ms. Olivier.
Ms. Olivier. I wish I had said all that.
But I will give you a couple other things that I would love
to see the task force work on, certainly the continuing
algorithms. They need to be able to adapt algorithms very
quickly, and I know that they are adding new ones at these
innovation lanes, but we need to take a look at how quickly
they could adapt algorithms throughout the country even in the
legacy installations when we pick up that there is a new
threat.
So we also need to continue to look at the human factor
element on the part of the screeners. There is a lot that goes
on at these screening checkpoints, and how can we understand a
way to be able to allow those screeners to maximize their
acuity in picking up issues in baggage and to minimize
distractions in what can be a very busy environment.
Beyond that, I would like to see the innovation lane focus
expanded out a bit to a distance detection, because when people
come in through the front doors, to the extent that you have a
stand-off detection of somebody with explosives on them--and
Mr. Higgins' dogs would help with that, but they are in short
supply. But other technology that gives you some stand-off
detection would help you dealing with the threat in the public
spaces even before people get to the checkpoint, so that is
also pretty critical. I would like to see some work in that
area.
Mr. Katko. Thank you.
I just want one last question, and I am going to switch
gears here considerably so I won't have to do another round of
questions, and that is for Mr. Council.
We had a discussion yesterday before you came in about what
Atlanta is doing with respect to screening of all employees. If
you could briefly summarize for everyone what that is I would
appreciate it, because that is going to be a narrative that is
going to be examined going forward.
We just had an access controls bill passed out of the House
this week, and it is going to mandate that an analysis be done
about screening all employees--or potential for screening all
employees at airports Nation-wide. I know the hue and cry is
going to be, ``It can't be done.'' Well, you are the largest
airport in the country, one of the largest in the world. Please
tell everyone what you are doing with respect to screening
employees.
Mr. Council. I can, Mr. Chairman.
So basically right now at Hartsfield-Jackson we are doing a
full screening and inspection for all of our employees,
especially those that have SIDA access, and SIDA is security
identification area, which is those people that actually can
get out on the airfield and have access to planes.
So right now we have been very fortunate that all of the
stakeholders that would have a role in this have agreed to be
willing participants in this screening process. That includes
the airlines; it includes concessionaires, and all of the
people that make up the whole eco-chain within the airport.
So currently every airline except Delta, who is our major
hub carrier, comes through four screening locations that we
have at our airport, OK? Those that are Delta employees who
have that--Delta actually has a screening process on their
secure lot.
When you get to their secure lot it takes a SIDA badge to
get into that lot, and once they get onto that lot then they
are also screened before they get on the buses that will take
them to the airfield. That screening involves checking of their
bags, some of the explosive trace detection, the swabs as well
as some of the hand wands.
But once those employees are actually checked then they are
led to a sterile environment to where there cannot be any kind
of outside influence on those employees before they get on the
bus. That sterile area is actually manned by security guards.
So once they get on the bus and make their way up toward
the airfield, before they get into the airfield then there is
another stop that is there and there is another possibility for
a random search there by VIPR and other security personnel that
will again ensure that everybody that is on that bus, you know,
has, to the most part, been screened. So that is very important
for us.
But for non-Delta employees, all other employees----
Mr. Katko. Let me interrupt you, just before you get to
non-Delta.
Mr. Council. Sure.
Mr. Katko. But the bus does go and they bring them into the
airport and they go directly into a secure area so they don't
get released to the public before they go into the airport,
correct?
Mr. Council. That is exactly correct.
Mr. Katko. OK. All right.
Mr. Council. Yes. Yes. That is a very good point, sir.
So all other airport employees actually go through four of
the screening locations that we have, and those screening
locations include metal detector, X-ray machines, explosive
trace, as well as hand wands. They will also get pat-downs if
there is an alarm or alert that is actually hit once they go
through the machines.
So we have started this process now and we are probably in
our second year. The good thing, in terms of what Delta is
doing, is by the end of this year they will also be installing
the metal detectors and the X-ray machines.
So, so far it has been working for us. The stakeholders
have been very diligent in their efforts, and we feel that it
has made a big difference at Hartsfield-Jackson.
Mr. Katko. We could go on and on, but I want to commend you
for doing that. If the world's largest airport can do it and
the costs associated with it can somehow be absorbed--I know
Delta is paying for their own screening and I know it is a
substantial sum of money, but they--you can't put a value on
safety.
When you are plugging a security gap as big as this one,
the way you are doing it in an effective manner, I just want to
say for the record we very much applaud it and we appreciate
it, and the committee appreciates and applauds your efforts, so
thank you very much.
Mr. Council. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Katko. With that, the Chair now recognizes Mrs. Watson
Coleman for questions.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
I just really am prompted to ask one question, and this has
to do with the Fort Lauderdale situation, where a person picked
up his baggage, which contained his gun, and then had his
ammunition separated, and then he goes into the bathroom, and
then he comes out and you know what happens. So my question is,
I know that has got to be something that you all are thinking
about or reacting to, and I just wanted to know what you all
are doing in that space.
Mr. Council. So for us, yes, that situation--and it is
amazing that that situation in itself has not happened before
it actually happened. You know, but that is the challenge as an
airport that we have, managing, you know, what happens in that
non-secure space.
You know, for us prevention is always what we try to work
on, but it is also how quickly we can respond and what
mitigation plans we have to put in place as soon as we can when
something like that actually happens, you know. This is
something that we train on. You know, we train judiciously to
try to react and to try to make sure that we move those people
that could be affected, you know, in a very safe way and get
out of harm's way.
But to be quite frank with you, it is very difficult to
prevent, you know, so that is why we spend so much time in
trying to recognize behavior. We have people that are
plainclothesmen that literally look at behavior of passengers,
you know, and try to detect and try to pick up, you know,
nuances that could lead us to think that this is someone that
we need to watch.
But the majority of our efforts, in addition to that, is
really around, how do we mitigate and respond as quickly as we
can to an event to try to minimize it?
Mrs. Watson Coleman. You all have plain-clothes security.
Mr. Council. Yes----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Are they armed?
Mr. Council. I believe they are.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. OK.
Mr. Council. Yes, they are.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Ms. Olivier?
Ms. Olivier. Yes, Congressman.
The Port Authority has actually written to the
administrator of the--the acting administrator of the TSA about
this, making several suggestions certainly that include
separating the checking of these weapons and when it comes time
to receive them that they be received in a different area from
the baggage area where other baggage is, and that, in fact, the
airlines be required to notify the receiving airport that they
are shipping through weaponry so that the airport can make a
decision on whether it should deploy its police, its armed
LEOs, to the point where those weapons are reclaimed.
Also, as I think you are sensitive in our region, we are
very concerned throughout our region about guns and the access
to guns in our New York-New Jersey area. Often we find that
passengers who are resident in another State, another locale,
licensed to carry the guns, are unaware of the local laws. If
you are not licensed to carry a gun in New York City, for
example, when you arrive and you, you know, unwrap your gun,
you are not allowed to be carrying that alone unless you have a
local license, and you are potentially subject to arrest.
We feel that the airlines, understanding that they are
checking a weapon and understanding what the destination of
this passenger is, should give advanced warning to those
passengers that, ``Wait a minute, if you are not licensed to
carry you probably should not be bringing this to New York.''
So we urge that some action be taken in that regard to require
airlines to deliver those messages, as well.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Could I ask that the copy of those
suggestions be sent to us so that we might look at them?
Ms. Olivier. We will do so.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Katko. Yes. I was just going to ask the same thing, for
sure.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Higgins for any further
questions he may have.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Karoly, regarding the technology for smart lanes, I am
seeing on this handout that there are five models for smart
lanes. Is that correct?
Mr. Karoly. Yes, sir. There are five manufacturers and then
there is the integration of both a Smiths and a Rapiscan X-ray,
so there are virtually 10 different configurations from five
manufacturers.
Mr. Higgins. Have all five of these models been deployed at
the testing airports, at the pilot airports?
Mr. Karoly. Right now, sir, the only deployed model is the
MacDonald Humfrey and Rapiscan.
Mr. Higgins. That is the model that, Mr. Council, you have
in your airport, is the MacDonald Humfrey?
Mr. Council. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Perhaps I missed that in earlier testimony. If
I did I apologize.
Is there intention as you expand the program, sir, to
deploy the other four models, whereby they might be measured
for their efficiency and effectiveness?
Mr. Karoly. Yes, sir. That is the plan, working with our
stakeholders. We just approved the Vanderlande and Rapiscan
system, so that is a system that is available to airports and
airlines; and we just approved the Scarabee Smiths system for
the same thing.
We are still going through--undergoing testing with the two
remaining systems, but once that is complete that will be
available for other airlines and airports to deploy.
Mr. Higgins. OK.
Regarding, Mr. Council, you--it was very encouraging to
hear the screening that is taking place for the employees,
airport employees, at your airport, so that is a question I had
posed to some ladies and gentlemen that testified before this
committee some month or so ago. It is very encouraging to hear
that.
But how would we balance that against airports that do not
have screening access like that and procedures in place, given
the fact that the airplane itself that we are trying to assure
that that aircraft has not had a weapon, say, planted on it
somewhere by some employee--that is the reason we are screening
our employees, right?
So how can we balance that against the fact that other
airports do not have such stringent--or some other airports,
perhaps--where that plane that comes to your airport is not--
has come from an airport that has--does not have that screening
for their employees?
So how do we balance that, and how would this committee
move forward with recommendations for TSA to correct that?
Mr. Council. So I think that basically the whole notion of
employee screening has to be just more pervasive through other
airports.
Mr. Higgins. No doubt.
Mr. Council. Yes. That literally has to be where we start.
You know, I think that the job that we feel like that we
have done, you know, in all cases we are trying to deter, you
know, we are trying to prevent, you know, anything that could
actually happen. One of the issues that we had that kicked all
of this off was the transport of weapons that was found from an
employee at Hartsfield-Jackson, you know, and we soon learned
that there was--that was something that was part of something
larger and stuff.
So that incident itself has put us in the position where we
are now, to where we try to scrutinize our employees a whole
lot better than that.
In terms of any guns that are coming in, you know, it just
depends on how they come in. You know, and if it is part of
somebody's checked baggage--that incident that happened in Fort
Lauderdale--again, it is really tough to try to prevent.
Mr. Higgins. Right. It would be more speaking of, like,
intentional planting of a weapon by an employee.
If I could shift this question to Mr. Karoly, would you be
the gentleman that is receiving incoming new technologies? For
instance, here are several technologies here that are as yet
untested. Is there any pending technology that would be
deployed to test arriving aircraft, the aircraft themselves,
that would potentially detect within the passenger compartments
of the aircraft some potential threat like a planted handgun?
Mr. Karoly. Sir, we are not working in that area today. We
do have a broad agency announcement that we will be releasing,
our second one, in a couple weeks, and with that broad agency
announcement it asks for state-of-the-art we will say
technologies, process changes, to better secure the
transportation environment, if you will. So----
Mr. Higgins. That would include the aircraft itself?
Mr. Karoly. It could include the aircraft if somebody
proposed that information, sir. Yes, sir, but we are not doing
it today.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you all for testifying today.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
I would like to thank all of the three witnesses here today
for their testimony. It was excellent. We covered a wide range
of topics and really very thought-provoking subject matter came
up for us, so I appreciate it.
I want to really reiterate that the primary goal, in my
mind, of the ITF is to give them the tools necessary to expand
their operations so that more and better technology can be
tested on a more expedited manner and so we can get the good
ideas on the front lines to keep our country protected as
emerging threats--and ever-evolving emerging threats, as we
know--from the bad guys can be properly detected and thwarted.
So that is the goal of this hearing. That is the goal of
our inquiry going forward.
So, Mr. Karoly, if you could get us a response by May 5 to
the inquiry we made to you on the record I would very much
appreciate that.
I would like to thank everyone else and my fellow committee
Members here for their excellent questions.
We may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we
will ask you to respond to these in writing.
Pursuant to committee rule VII(D), the hearing record will
be open for 10 days.
Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman John Katko for Steve Karoly
Question 1. How has the Innovation Task Force sought to improve the
way TSA develops, tests, and deploys new technologies into the field?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2a. What changes, if any, should be made to the
relationship between DHS S&T and TSA in regards to how we procure and
field new technologies?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2b. Is there a way to better collaborate on developing
capabilities similar to the creation of the DHS Joint Requirements
Council, which was created to help unify procurement requirements
across individual DHS components?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. How does the Innovation Task Force inform the
development of the mandatory Five-Year Strategic Technology Investment
Plan?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4. What is TSA doing to assess the impact new technologies
like the Automated Screening Lanes will have on the current staffing
allocation model?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5a. Last year, TSA screened over 738 million passengers of
which nearly 97 million were international departures from the top 20
airports in the United States. For those foreign visitors departing the
United States, State and CBP has already collected their biometrics and
completed a fair amount of vetting prior to their entry into the United
States.
Given the vetting conducted by State and CBP prior to entry, is it
possible to leverage that information gathering, vetting, link
analysis, and move those foreign visitors into a known traveler lane?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5b. Would you give us an update on what conversations you
have had with CBP in this regard?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6. In what ways would you say the Innovation Task Force
has impacted the way in which TSA approaches technology solutions at
the passenger screening process?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 7a. Now and in the future, is the ITF planned to be a
``checkpoint of the future'' to simply demonstrate mature and pre-
mature technologies and impress/urge the public/airports/airlines?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 7b. Or is ITF designed to quickly integrate new, needed
technologies, gather critical OT experience and data, and be able to
fast-track those capabilities into airports?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 8a. ITF emerged out of a process engineering issue in wait
times.
How does that ``priority'' fit into the other TSA priorities of
cyber, HME, employee screening, liquid explosives, etc.?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 8b. How does the ITF advance a priority in concert with
the existing TSA technology prioritization, security vulnerability, and
testing goals?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 8c. Has ITF identified its priorities or is everything a
priority?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 9a. A well-defined procurement path or airport security
requirement has to be aligned with the ITF for technology companies
large and small to meaningfully participate.
How does the ITF work align with development of the Five-Year
Acquisition Plan?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 9b. If not, why not?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 10. The ITF has potential value, however, if the
demonstrated technologies are then sent to the TSIF potentially,
upstaging long-standing T&E activities, makes existing manpower and
resourcing problem worse.
What personnel and resourcing is TSA devoting to this effort
without diluting existing and vital requirement development, equipment
testing, and evaluation?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 11. If ITF in no way reduces the time it takes to develop
requirements and get technology to the checkpoint either with airport
or TSA dollars and perhaps worse, disrupts installation of needed
upgrades and replacement of existing technologies then it's been a
colossal waste of effort.
How will TSA be able to reduce the time it takes to get technology
deployed using the ITF process?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 12. Innovation lane-approved projects have included CT
scanners, biometrics, mobile ETDs and airport staffing models. However,
what's not clear is what is the resourcing to bring these solutions to
bear.
What does TSA need in terms of funding the ITF to be able to test
multiple technologies, collect operational data, and write requirements
documents?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 13. What feedback have you received from front-line
Transportation Security Officers who are working at the various
innovation lanes in place at airports across the country?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 14. Does TSA have a plan to institutionalize the Task
Force or attempt to connect its findings into existing programs and
offices at TSA?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 15a. Has the ITF demonstrated any new technologies at
surface transportation hubs?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 15b. If no, why not?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 16. How can TSA and DHS S&T work together better when it
comes to developing not only joint requirements, but capabilities as
well?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 17. How do you believe TSA as an agency can be better
structured to support innovation when it comes to screening
technologies?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Ranking Member Watson Coleman for Steve Karoly
Question 1a. How many small-to-medium businesses participate in the
ITF?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. How is TSA working to keep the small-to-medium
businesses engaged and contributing to new passenger screening
technologies?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. What has the Innovation Task Force accomplished since
the initial stand-up in spring of 2016?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3a. What is the long-term plan for the Innovation Task
Force going forward?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3b. Where does the Innovation Task Force fall in the
priorities for TSA?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4a. What has TSA's outreach to the flying public about
changes in screening procedures been?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4b. What are the long-term plans for letting the flying
public know what to expect in the screening changes that will be coming
to their airports?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5. With the roll-out of the demonstrations and
communicating with passengers, how is TSA taking into account persons
with disabilities or those who speak different languages and how the
new technologies might impact their travel?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6a. In the past, TSA has rolled out technology that was
controversial. When the first generation advanced imaging technology
machines were rolled out there was mass confusion and concerns about
the review process for the devices.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6b. How has the Task Force improved TSA's review products
before putting them through to demonstrations?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 7. What is the Task Force's interaction with the Aviation
Security Advisory Committee?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 8. The Task Force seems as if it has been a solid example
to public and private sectors partnering to make a positive impact.
What resources or assistance do you think the Task Force needs from
the private sector to continue to help build on the work that has been
completed thus far?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 9. Please describe the interplay between the Task Force,
the Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL) and TSA Systems
Integration Facility (TSIF).
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 10. How does the Task Force prioritize technologies?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Chairman John Katko for Roosevelt Council, Jr.
Question 1. What do you believe to be the primary takeaways from
the innovation lanes in place at your airport?
Answer. A primary takeaway from the project management aspect of
installing the Automated Screening Lanes (ASLs) was the importance of
putting in place the required electrical infrastructure ahead of the
ASL installation. Setting up the infrastructure in advance saved time
and minimized the duration of out-of-service equipment. From an
operational aspect, the primary takeaway is that compared with a
standard lane, an ASL increases passenger throughput by as much as 30
percent. As passenger growth in originating traffic continues to climb,
the increased throughput helps our airport minimize lines and keep wait
times at or below 20 minutes.
Question 2. What are the primary challenges to implementing new
screening technologies at airports, such as automated screening lanes?
Answer. Aside from funding, the primary challenge of implementing a
new technology, especially one that interfaces with the traveling
public, is the passenger's adjustment to the new process. In the case
of ASLs, even PreCheck travelers and other frequent fliers have faced a
learning curve with the new process. With standard screening lanes, for
instance, only certain items needed to be placed in a bin. The ASL, on
the other hand, requires all items be placed in a bin. At this point,
familiarization and constant communication with the traveling public
are the only solutions. Of course, all airports may not install the
same technologies, leading to possible uncertainty and confusion as the
traveling public navigates different processes. Another major challenge
is available checkpoint floor area. ASLs and other technologies can
require a larger footprint, forcing some area-constrained checkpoints
to make major building modifications to install these new technologies.
Question 3. Do you think that the TSA's Innovation Task Force (ITF)
is well-positioned to implement solutions from findings derived from
the innovation lanes at your airport?
Answer. Yes, we are confident that ITF is well-positioned to
implement solutions based on findings from the innovation lanes. Since
the first ASL installation 1 year ago, the city of Atlanta, the
Transportation Security Administration and our airline partners have
worked with the task force to test several process improvements. Such
improvements include dual AIT screening, cross-lane screening and
remote screening. We believe testing these new initiatives at the
world's busiest airport gives ITF the information needed to implement
changes at other large airports Nation-wide.
Question 4. What are airports doing to support technology
innovation at TSA and how do you perceive the relationship on this
front between stakeholders and the agency?
Answer. We are pleased to report that the relationship between the
city of Atlanta, our partner airlines, and TSA has always been--and
remains--strong. We pride ourselves in supporting TSA's technology
initiatives. We recently provided design support, added capacity to our
electrical infrastructure, and constructed additional facilities for
TSA to conduct a remote screening room pilot program.
Question 5. What insight do you have into how TSA develops,
procures, and deploys new technologies at airports? How can this
process be made more effective?
Answer. As an airport, we have little insight into how TSA develops
and procures technology. It is our understanding that ITF brings new
technologies to airports and its stakeholders for consideration.
Stakeholders then decide which technologies to test. In terms of
deployment, once new technologies are tested and approved, the airport
is heavily involved in the process.
Question 6. What solutions do you believe TSA should focus on in
the medium- and long-term to usher in a new era of security screening
at airports?
Answer. In the mid-term, TSA should continue to advance automation
using biometrics in passenger screening and find ways to automate
oversized baggage screening. As more airlines and companies such as
Clear continue to test and implement biometrics for passenger check-in,
we should expect that this service would eventually be tested as part
of the passenger screening process.
In the long term, one focus should be to improve exit lane
technologies. Currently, few options exist for automation of passenger
exiting from secured to unsecured areas of the airport. Our exit lanes
are staffed 24/7 and several are ADA-challenged. Finding an exit lane
technology that reduces the required staffing while improving overall
airport security would be beneficial.
Question 7a. Based on the experience of your airport, how well is
TSA positioned as an agency to spur innovation at the checkpoint?
Answer. All stakeholders share in the responsibility of spurring
innovation, but the airport does not see TSA's role to encourage such
innovation. Instead, we believe TSA should focus its efforts on
ensuring that any innovation being introduced can enhance security and
improve efficiencies.
Question 7b. What role and responsibility should stakeholders have
in regards to such innovation?
Answer. All stakeholders have a role to play when it comes to
innovation. Airlines continue to improve efficiencies and enhance
customer service--all while lowering costs. In finding those
efficiencies, airlines provide recommendations on what new technologies
may offer the best passenger experience. An airport's role and
responsibility should be to provide assistance and support with
facility needs. Such was the case with the ASLs, as the airport
assisted the TSA with infrastructure and facility needs.
Question 8a. Do you believe that the Innovation Task Force has been
focusing on the aspects of security technology that are most in need of
attention?
Answer. Yes. Based on recent terror attacks on public airports and
long checkpoint lines experienced last year, we believe the Innovation
Task Force has focused on the current needs of passenger screening.
Question 8b. Are there other areas of the airport, such as checked
baggage, in which technology needs to be improved but has not been a
focus of the ITF?
Answer. Yes, past deficiencies of the inline baggage system are
being corrected with the EDS recapitalization program. This program
will bring improvements in baggage scanning technology and the overall
inline baggage system. However, we still need to improve baggage
screening technologies to reduce alarm rates on liquids, gels, and
aerosols. Such equipment improvements are necessary to increase the
accuracy of inspections while decreasing overall time of a bag in the
system.
Questions From Chairman Michael T. McCaul for Jeanne M. Olivier
Question 1. What do you believe to be the primary takeaways from
the innovation lanes in place at your airport?
Answer. The innovation lanes are a success in moving passengers
faster through the screening queues and may reduce traveler frustration
at delays from passengers who are unfamiliar with screening routines.
The new lanes provide for several passengers to divest and load
screening bins simultaneously, which means that the line is not held up
by a single traveler. However, this benefit will only materialize as
passengers become familiar with the new equipment and procedures. In
other words, there is a learning curve. It appears that TSA staffing
will still be required at the current levels for the checkpoints, but
wait times may be reduced with improved throughput.
Question 2. What are the primary challenges to implementing new
screening technologies at airports, such as automated screening lanes?
Answer. Funding for the lane equipment and space for the equipment
will be key challenges for implementation of the new automated
screening lanes, and funding would remain a primary challenge for
implementing any other new screening technology. Another challenge has
been passenger acceptance and behavior. Reconfiguration of the space
and relocation of CCTV camera equipment etc. are additional
considerations.
Question 3. Do you think that TSA's Innovation Task force is well-
positioned to implement solutions from findings derived from the
innovation lanes at your airport?
Answer. The innovation lanes are a successful effort at Newark
Liberty International Airport. We understand that TSA has collected
data on staffing, configuration, and threat resolution scenarios,
however those data findings have not yet been shared with us as the
airport operator.
Question 4. What are airports doing to support technology
innovation at TSA and how do you perceive the relationship on this
front between stakeholders and the agency?
Answer. We and other airports vigorously support TSA innovation and
the TSA's Innovation Task Force, and believe TSA is on the right path
in this regard. Some airports and airline tenant partners have already
paid for pilots of technology innovation. A number of our colleague
airports have volunteered to serve as pilot centers for TSA innovation
efforts. We hope that airports will have an even greater role in the
checkpoint improvements including those airports that lack financial
resources to fund the efforts.
Question 5. What insight do you have into how TSA develops,
procures, and deploys new technologies at airports? How can this
process be made more effective?
Answer. We have very little insight into how TSA develops,
procures, and deploys new technologies at airports. It is our
impression that the Federal procurement process is very burdensome and
thereby limits the TSA's agility and piloting of new technology.
Question 6. What solutions do you believe TSA should focus on in
the medium- and long-term to usher in a new era of security screening
at airports?
Answer. In the short run, the TSA PreCheck program helps speed
passengers effectively through screening and is an important component
of the checkpoint operation. It needs to be greatly expanded through
private sector and industry enrollment options. In the longer term,
technology enhancements that allow passengers to pass through the
checkpoint without stopping, taking off shoes, removing laptops from
bags, or carrying beverages and food while at the same time improving
security and detection are important.
Question 7. Based on the experience of your airport, how well is
TSA positioned as an agency to spur innovation at the checkpoint? What
role and responsibility should stakeholders have in regards to such
innovation?
Answer. We are encouraged by the formation of the Innovation Task
Force. It is a step in the right direction. It needs to be sustained
with permanent funding and adequate staffing. It needs to ensure an on-
going vehicle for product and service providers to offer and
demonstrate their innovative products and provide demonstration pilots
for a wide breadth of such products.
The checkpoint and the screening of passengers and their baggage is
and should be the sole responsibility of the TSA. That said, we
recognize that airports and terminal operators, and airlines can and
have volunteered to support innovation and adaptation to address
specific facility needs or enhance the customer experience. It is
critical that airports be involved early on in any TSA innovation
plans. TSA, as with any Federal agency, is burdened by limited funding
and very constrained procurement processes.
Question 8. Do you believe that the Innovation Task Force has been
focusing on the aspects of security technology that are most in need of
attention?
Are there other areas of the airport--such as checked baggage--
where technology needs to be improved but has not been a focus of the
ITF?
Answer. The Innovation Task Force is a small staff of 24 with no
dedicated funding and therefore efforts that require longer continuity
may be impeded. The Task Force addressed the ``low-hanging fruit'' of
screening efficiency and passenger throughput through the introduction
of new lanes. What will be far more challenging is the development and
introduction of more effective screening equipment such as the CT
machines for the checkpoint, and other methods of detection of harmful
liquids, and artfully concealed explosives. Certainly there are many
areas warranting improved technology for security beyond the
checkpoints at our airports, including such things as effective CCTV
tracking of individuals throughout a terminal, monitoring for gun
shots, and further work regarding explosive detection in public spaces.
[all]