Aviation Security: Progress Since September 11, 2001, and the
Challenges Ahead (09-SEP-03, GAO-03-1150T).
In the 2 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
the security of our nation's civil aviation system has assumed
renewed urgency, and efforts to strengthen aviation security have
received a great deal of congressional attention. On November 19,
2001, the Congress enacted the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (ATSA), which created the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) within the Department of Transportation
(DOT) and defined its primary responsibility as ensuring security
in aviation as well as in other modes of transportation. The
Homeland Security Act, passed on November 25, 2002, transferred
TSA to the new Department of Homeland Security, which assumed
overall responsibility for aviation security. GAO was asked to
describe the progress that has been made since September 11 to
strengthen aviation security, the potential vulnerabilities that
remain, and the longer-term management and organizational
challenges to sustaining enhanced aviation security.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-1150T
ACCNO: A08395
TITLE: Aviation Security: Progress Since September 11, 2001, and
the Challenges Ahead
DATE: 09/09/2003
SUBJECT: Air transportation operations
Airport security
Baggage (personal effects)
Commercial aviation
Counterterrorism
Facility security
Internal controls
Strategic planning
Transportation safety
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-1150T
Testimony Before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.
S. Senate
United States General Accounting Office
GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 9: 30 a. m. EDT Tuesday September
9, 2003 AVIATION SECURITY
Progress Since September 11, 2001, and the Challenges Ahead
Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Director, Civil Aviation Issues
GAO- 03- 1150T
Since September 11, 2001, TSA has made considerable progress in meeting
congressional mandates designed to increase aviation security. By the end
of 2002, the agency had hired and deployed about 65,000 passenger and
baggage screeners, federal air marshals, and others, and it was using
explosives detection equipment to screen about 90 percent of all checked
baggage. TSA is also initiating or developing efforts that focus on the
use of technology and information to advance security. One effort under
development, the next- generation Computer- Assisted Passenger
Prescreening System (CAPPS II), would use national security and commercial
databases to identify passengers who could pose risks for additional
screening. Concerns about privacy rights will need to be addressed as this
system moves toward implementation.
Although TSA has focused on ensuring that bombs and other threat items are
not carried onto planes by passengers or in their luggage, vulnerabilities
remain in air cargo, general aviation, and airport perimeter security.
Each year, an estimated 12.5 million tons of cargo are transported on all-
cargo and passenger planes, yet very little air cargo is screened for
explosives. We have previously recommended, and the industry has
suggested, that TSA use a
risk- management approach to set priorities as it works with the industry
to determine the next steps in strengthening aviation security.
TSA faces longer- term management and organizational challenges to
sustaining enhanced aviation security that include (1) developing and
implementing a comprehensive risk management approach, (2) paying for
increased aviation security needs and controlling costs, (3) establishing
effective coordination among the many entities involved in aviation
security, (4) strategically managing its workforce, and (5) building a
results- oriented culture within the new Department of Homeland Security.
TSA has begun to respond to recommendations we have made addressing many
of these challenges, and we have other studies in progress.
Air Cargo Remains Vulnerable to Terrorist Threats
In the 2 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
security of our nation*s civil aviation system has assumed renewed
urgency, and efforts to strengthen aviation security have received a great
deal of
congressional attention. On November 19, 2001, the Congress enacted the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), which created the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) within the
Department of Transportation (DOT) and defined its primary responsibility
as ensuring security in aviation as well as in other
modes of transportation. The Homeland Security Act, passed on November 25,
2002, transferred TSA to the new Department of Homeland Security, which
assumed overall responsibility for aviation
security. GAO was asked to describe the progress that has been made since
September 11 to strengthen aviation security, the potential
vulnerabilities that remain, and the longer- term management and
organizational challenges to sustaining enhanced aviation security. In
prior reports and testimonies, listed at the end of this statement, GAO
has made numerous recommendations to strengthen
aviation security and to improve the management of federal aviation
security organizations and functions.
www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 1150T. To view the full product,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph. D., at (202) 512- 2834 or
dillinghamg@ gao. gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 1150T, a testimony
before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U. S. Senate
September 9, 2003
AVIATION SECURITY Progress Since September 11, 2001, and the Challenges
Ahead
Page 1 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: In the 2 years since the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the security of our nation*s
civil aviation system has assumed renewed urgency, and efforts to
strengthen aviation security have received a great deal of congressional
attention. On November 19, 2001, the Congress enacted the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA), which created the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) within the Department of Transportation
(DOT) and defined its primary responsibility as ensuring security in
aviation as well as in other modes of transportation. The act set forth
specific improvements to aviation security for TSA to implement and
established deadlines for completing many of them. The Homeland Security
Act, passed on November 25, 2002, transferred TSA to the new Department of
Homeland Security, which
assumed overall responsibility for aviation security. My testimony today
addresses the (1) progress that has been made since September 11 to
strengthen aviation security, (2) potential vulnerabilities that remain,
and (3) longer- term management and organizational challenges to
sustaining enhanced aviation security. The testimony is based on our prior
work, our review of recent literature, and discussions with aviation
industry representatives and TSA.
In summary: Since September 2001, TSA has made considerable progress in
meeting congressional mandates related to aviation security, thereby
increasing aviation security. For example, by the end of December 2002,
the agency had hired and deployed a workforce of about 65,000, including
passenger and baggage screeners and federal air marshals, and it was using
explosives detection equipment to screen about 90 percent of all checked
baggage. In addition, TSA has initiated several programs and research and
development efforts that focus on the use of technology and information to
advance security. For example, the agency is developing the Transportation
Workers Identification Card program to provide a nationwide standard
credential for airport workers that is issued after a background check has
been completed and biometric indicators have been incorporated so that
each worker can be positively matched to his or her credential. TSA is
also developing the next- generation Computer Assisted Passenger
Prescreening System (CAPPS II), which would use national security and
commercial databases to assess the risk posed by passengers and identify
some passengers for additional screening before they board
their flights. These uses of technology and information* particularly
Page 2 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
CAPPS II* have raised some concerns about privacy rights that will need to
be addressed as these programs move toward implementation.
Although TSA has focused much effort and funding on ensuring that bombs
and other threat items are not carried onto planes by passengers or in
their luggage, vulnerabilities remain in areas such as air cargo security,
general aviation security, and airport perimeter security. For example,
air cargo is vulnerable because very little of the estimated 12.5 million
tons
transported each year on all- cargo and passenger planes is physically
screened for explosives. As a result, a potential security risk is the
introduction of explosive and incendiary devices in cargo placed aboard
aircraft. We have recommended in prior work that TSA use a risk management
approach to prioritize actions and funding as it works with industry to
determine the next steps in strengthening air cargo security, and industry
stakeholders have suggested the application of such an approach to general
aviation security.
TSA faces longer- term management and organizational challenges to
sustaining enhanced aviation security that include (1) developing and
implementing a comprehensive risk management approach, (2) paying for
increased aviation security needs and controlling costs, (3) establishing
effective coordination among the many public and private entities involved
in aviation security, (4) strategically managing its workforce and
ensuring appropriate staffing levels, and (5) building a results- oriented
culture as it shifts its aviation security and other functions to the
Department of Homeland Security. We have issued reports and made
recommendations that address many of these challenges, and some actions
are under way. In addition, we have studies in progress on some of these
issues.
Before September 2001, we and others had demonstrated significant,
longstanding vulnerabilities in aviation security, some of which are
depicted in figure 1. These included weaknesses in screening passengers
and baggage,
controlling access to secure areas at airports, and protecting air traffic
control computer systems and facilities. To address these and other
weaknesses, ATSA created the Transportation Security Administration and
established security requirements for the new agency with mandated
deadlines. Background
Page 3 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
This page intentially left blank
Page 4 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Figure 1: Aviation Security Focus Areas
Source: GAO.
Page 5 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Page 6 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Before September 2001, screeners, who were then hired by the airlines,
often failed to detect threat objects located on passengers or in their
carryon luggage. Principal causes of screeners* performance problems were
rapid turnover and insufficient training. As we previously reported,
turnover rates exceeded 100 percent a year at most large airports, leaving
few skilled and experienced screeners, primarily because of low wages,
limited benefits, and repetitive, monotonous work. 1 In addition, before
September 2001, controls for limiting access to secure areas of airports,
including aircraft, did not always work as intended. As we reported in May
2000, our special agents used fictitious law enforcement badges and
credentials to gain access to secure areas, bypass security checkpoints at
two airports, and walk unescorted to aircraft departure gates. 2 The
agents, who had been issued tickets and boarding passes, could have
carried weapons, explosives, or other dangerous objects onto aircraft.
DOT*s Inspector General also documented numerous problems with airport
access controls, and in one series of tests, nearly 7 out of every 10
attempts by the Inspector General*s staff to gain access to secure areas
were successful. Upon entering the secure areas, the Inspector General*s
staff boarded aircraft 117 times. The Inspector General further reported
that the majority of the aircraft boardings would not have occurred if
employees had taken the prescribed steps, such as making sure doors closed
behind them.
Our reviews also found that the security of the air traffic control
computer systems and of the facilities that house them had not been
ensured. 3 The vulnerabilities we identified, such as not ensuring that
contractors who
1 U. S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Security: Long- Standing
Problems Impair Airport Screeners* Performance, GAO/ RCED- 00- 75
(Washington, D. C.: June 28, 2000) and U. S. General Accounting Office,
Aviation Security: Terrorist Acts Illustrate Severe Weaknesses in Aviation
Security, GAO- 01- 1166T (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 20, 2001).
2 U. S. General Accounting Office, Security: Breaches at Federal Agencies
and Airports,
GAO- OSI- 0010 (Washington, D. C.: May 25, 2000). 3 U. S. General
Accounting Office, Aviation Security: Weak Computer Security Practices
Jeopardize Flight Safety, GAO/ AIMD- 98- 155 (Washington, D. C.: May 18,
1998); Computer Security: FAA Needs to Improve Controls over Use of
Foreign Nationals to Remediate and Review Software, GAO/ AIMD- 00- 55
(Washington, D. C.: Dec. 23, 1999); Computer Security: FAA Is Addressing
Personnel Weaknesses, but Further Action Is Required,
GAO/ AIMD- 00- 169 (Washington, D. C.: May 31, 2000); FAA Computer
Security: Concerns Remain Due to Personnel and Other Continuing
Weaknesses, GAO/ AIMD- 00- 252 (Washington, D. C.: Aug. 16, 2000); and FAA
Computer Security: Recommendations to
Address Continuing Weaknesses, GAO- 01- 171 (Washington, D. C.: Dec. 6,
2000). Civil Aviation Was
Vulnerable before September 11, 2001
Page 7 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
had access to the air traffic control computer systems had undergone
background checks, made the air traffic control system susceptible to
intrusion and malicious attacks. The air traffic control computer systems
provide information to air traffic controllers and aircraft flight crews
to help ensure the safe and expeditious movement of aircraft. Failure to
protect these systems and their facilities could cause a nationwide
disruption of air traffic or even collisions and loss of life.
Over the years, we made numerous recommendations to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), which, until ATSA*s enactment, was responsible for
aviation security. These recommendations were designed to improve
screeners* performance, strengthen airport access controls,
and better protect air traffic control computer systems and facilities. As
of September 2001, FAA had implemented some of these recommendations and
was addressing others, but its progress was often slow. In addition, many
initiatives were not linked to specific deadlines, making it difficult to
monitor and oversee their implementation.
ATSA defined TSA*s primary responsibility as ensuring security in all
modes of transportation. The act also shifted security- screening
responsibilities from the airlines to TSA and established a series of
requirements to strengthen aviation security, many of them with mandated
implementation deadlines. For example, the act required the deployment
of federal screeners at 429 commercial airports across the nation by
November 19, 2002, and the use of explosives detection technology at these
airports to screen every piece of checked baggage for explosives not
later than December 31, 2002. However, the Homeland Security Act
subsequently allowed TSA to grant waivers of up to 1 year to airports that
would not be able to meet the December deadline.
Some aviation security responsibilities remained with FAA. For example,
FAA is responsible for the security of its air traffic control and other
computer systems and of its air traffic control facilities. FAA also
administers the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) trust fund, which is
used to fund capital improvements to airports, including some security
enhancements, such as terminal modifications to accommodate explosives
detection equipment. Legislation Transferred
Most Aviation Security Responsibilities to TSA
Page 8 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Over the past 2 years, TSA and FAA have taken major steps to increase
aviation security. TSA has implemented congressional mandates and explored
options for increasing the use of technology and information to control
access to secure areas of airports and to improve passenger screening. FAA
has focused its efforts on enhancing the security of the nation*s air
traffic control systems and facilities. In ongoing work, we are examining
some of these efforts in more detail (see app. IV). In its first year, TSA
worked to establish its organization and focused
primarily on meeting the aviation security deadlines set forth in ATSA,
accomplishing a large number of tasks under a very ambitious schedule. In
January 2002, TSA had 13 employees* 1 year later, the agency had about
65,000 employees. TSA reported that it met over 30 deadlines during 2002
to improve aviation security. (See app. I for the status of mandates in
ATSA.) For example, according to TSA, it met the November 2002 deadline
to deploy federal passenger screeners at airports across the nation by
hiring, training, and deploying over 40,000
individuals to screen passengers at 429 commercial airports (see fig. 2);
hired and deployed more than 20,000 individuals to screen all checked
baggage; has been using explosives detection systems or explosives trace
detection
equipment to screen about 90 percent of all checked baggage as of December
31, 2002; 4 has been using alternative means such as canine teams, hand
searches,
and passenger- bag matching to screen the remaining checked baggage;
confiscated more than 4.8 million prohibited items (including firearms,
knives, and incendiary or flammable objects) from passengers; and has
made substantial progress in expanding the Federal Air Marshal
Service. 4 Explosives detection machines are used to screen baggage for
explosives and work by using CAT scan X- ray technology to take
fundamental measurements of materials in bags to recognize characteristic
signatures of threat explosives. Explosives trace detection systems (trace
detection machines) are used to screen baggage for explosives, and work by
detecting vapors and residues of explosives. Since September
2001, Multiple Initiatives Have Increased Aviation Security
TSA Met Many Aviation Security Mandates but Encountered Some Difficulties
Page 9 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
In addition, according to FAA, U. S. and foreign airlines met the April
2003 deadline to harden cockpit doors on aircraft flying in the United
States.
Figure 2: Screening Passengers at a U. S. Commercial Airport
Not unexpectedly, TSA experienced some difficulties in meeting these
deadlines and achieving these goals. For example, operational and
management control problems, cited later in this testimony, emerged with
the rapid expansion of the Federal Air Marshal Service, and TSA*s
deployment of some explosives detection systems was delayed. As a
Page 10 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
result, TSA had to grant waivers of up to a year (until Dec. 31, 2003) to
a few airports, authorizing them to use alternative means to screen all
checked baggage. Recently, airport representatives with whom we spoke
expressed concern that not all of these airports would meet the new
December 2003 deadline established in their waivers because, according to
the airport representatives, there has not been enough time to produce,
install, and integrate all of the systems required to meet the deadline.
To strengthen control over access to secure areas of airports and other
transportation facilities, TSA is pursuing initiatives that make greater
use of technology and information. For example, the agency is
investigating the establishment of a Transportation Workers Identification
Card (TWIC) program. TWIC is intended to establish a uniform, nationwide
standard for the secure identification of 12 million workers who require
unescorted physical or cyber access to secure areas at airports and other
transportation facilities. Specifically, TWIC will combine standard
background checks and biometrics so that a worker can be positively
matched to his or her credential. Once the program is fully operational,
the TWIC card will be the standard credential for airport workers and will
be accepted by all modes of transportation. According to TSA, developing a
uniform, nationwide standard for identification will minimize redundant
credentialing and background checks. Currently, each airport is required,
as part of its security program, to issue credentials to workers who need
access to secure, nonpublic areas, such as baggage loading areas. 5
Airport representatives have told us that they think a number of
operational issues need to be resolved for the TWIC card to be feasible.
For example, the TWIC card would have to be compatible with the many types
of card readers used at airports around the country, or new card readers
would have to be installed. At large airports, this could entail replacing
hundreds of card readers, and airport representatives have expressed
concerns about how this effort would be funded. In April 2003, TSA awarded
a contract to test and evaluate various technologies at three pilot sites.
In addition, TSA has continued to develop the next- generation Computer
Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II)* an automated passenger
screening system that takes personal information, such as a
5 Under 49 C. F. R. sec. 1542.101, all qualified airports are required to
have a TSA- approved security program that includes procedures to control
movement within the secured area, including identification media required
under sec. 1542.201( b)( 3). TSA Is Making Greater Use
of Technology and Information to Enhance Aviation Security
Page 11 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
passenger*s name, date of birth, home address, and home telephone number,
to confirm the passenger*s identity and assess a risk level. The
identifying information will be run against national security information
and commercial databases, and a *risk* score will be assigned to the
passenger. The risk score will determine any further screening that the
passenger will undergo before boarding. TSA expects to implement CAPPS II
throughout the United States by the fall of 2004. However, TSA*s plans
have raised concerns about travelers* privacy rights. It has been
suggested, for example, that TSA is violating privacy laws by not
explaining how the risk assessment data will be scored and used and how a
TSA decision can be appealed. These concerns about the system will need to
be addressed as it moves toward implementation. In ongoing work, we are
examining CAPPS II, including how it will function, what safeguards will
be put in place to protect the traveling public*s privacy, and how the
system will affect the traveling public in terms of costs, delays, and
risks.
Additionally, TSA has begun to develop initiatives that could enable it to
use its passenger screening resources more efficiently. For example, TSA
has requested funding for fiscal year 2004 to begin developing a
registered traveler program that would prescreen low- risk travelers.
Under a registered traveler program, those who voluntarily apply to
participate in the program and successfully pass background checks would
receive a
unique identifier or card that would enable them to be screened more
quickly and would promote greater focus on those passengers who require
more extensive screening at airport security checkpoints. In prior work,
we identified key policy and implementation issues that would need to be
resolved before a registered traveler program could be implemented. Such
issues include the (1) criteria that should be established to determine
eligibility to apply for the program, (2) kinds of background checks that
should be used to certify applicants* eligibility to enroll in the program
and the entity who should perform these checks, (3) security- screening
procedures that registered travelers should undergo and the differences
between these procedures and those for unregistered travelers, and (4)
concerns that the traveling public or others may have about equity,
privacy, and liability. 6 6 U. S. General Accounting Office, Aviation
Security: Registered Traveler Program Policy and Implementation Issues,
GAO- 03- 253 (Washington, D. C.: Nov. 22, 2002).
Page 12 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Since September 2001, FAA has continued to strengthen the security of the
nation*s air traffic control computer systems and facilities in response
to 39 recommendations we made between May 1998 and December 2000. For
example, FAA has established an information systems security management
structure under its Chief Information Officer, whose office has developed
an information systems security strategy, security architecture (that is,
an overall blueprint), security policies and directives, and a security
awareness training campaign. This office has also managed FAA*s incident
response center and implemented a certification and accreditation process
to ensure that vulnerabilities in current and future air traffic control
systems are identified and weaknesses addressed. Nevertheless, the office
faces continued challenges in increasing its intrusion detection
capabilities, obtaining accreditation for systems that are already
operational, and managing information systems security throughout the
agency. In addition, according to senior security officials, FAA has
completed assessments of the physical security of its staffed facilities,
but it has not yet accredited all of these air traffic control facilities
as secure in compliance with its own policy. Finally, FAA has worked
aggressively over the past 2 years to complete background investigations
of numerous contractor employees. However, ensuring that all new
contractors are assessed to determine which employees require
background checks, and that those checks are completed in a timely manner,
will be a continuing challenge for the agency.
Although TSA has focused much effort and funding on ensuring that bombs
and other threat items are not carried onto commercial aircraft by
passengers or in their luggage, vulnerabilities remain, according to
aviation experts, TSA officials, and others. In particular, these
vulnerabilities affect air cargo, general aviation, and airport perimeter
security. For information on legislative proposals that would address
these potential vulnerabilities and other aviation security issues, see
appendix II.
As we and DOT*s Inspector General have reported, vulnerabilities exist in
securing the cargo carried aboard commercial passenger and all- cargo
aircraft. TSA has reported that an estimated 12.5 million tons of cargo
are transported each year* 9. 7 million tons on all- cargo planes and 2.8
million tons on passenger planes. Some potential security risks associated
with air cargo include the introduction of undetected explosive and
incendiary FAA Is Strengthening Air
Traffic Control Security Potential Vulnerabilities Remain in Several
Aviation Sectors
Air Cargo Security
Page 13 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
devices in cargo placed aboard aircraft; the shipment of undeclared or
undetected hazardous materials aboard aircraft; and aircraft hijackings
and sabotage by individuals with access to cargo aircraft. 7 To address
some of the risks associated with air cargo, ATSA requires that all cargo
carried aboard commercial passenger aircraft be screened and that TSA
have a system in place as soon as practicable to screen, inspect, or
otherwise ensure the security of cargo on all- cargo aircraft. In August
2003, the Congressional Research Service reported that less than 5 percent
of cargo placed on passenger airplanes is physically screened. TSA*s
primary approach to ensuring air cargo security and safety and to
complying with the cargo- screening requirement in the act is the *known
shipper* program* which allows shippers that have established business
histories with air carriers or freight forwarders 8 to ship cargo on
planes. However, we and DOT*s Inspector General have identified weaknesses
in the known shipper program and in TSA*s procedures for approving freight
forwarders. 9 Since September 2001, TSA has taken a number of actions to
enhance
cargo security, such as implementing a database of known shippers in
October 2002. The database is the first phase in developing a
cargoprofiling system similar to the Computer- Assisted Passenger
Prescreening System. However, in December 2002, we reported that
additional operational and technological measures, such as checking the
identity of individuals making cargo deliveries, have the potential to
improve air
cargo security in the near term. 10 We further reported that TSA lacks a
comprehensive plan with long- term goals and performance targets for cargo
security, time frames for completing security improvements, and risk-
based criteria for prioritizing actions to achieve those goals.
Accordingly, we recommended that TSA develop a comprehensive plan for
7 For example, on November 15, 1979, an explosive device contained in a
parcel shipped by U. S. mail exploded aboard an American Airlines flight;
on April 7, 1994, a Federal Express employee attempted to hijack a company
plane and crash it into the company*s headquarters. We reported on the
security risks associated with dangerous goods in
Aviation Security: Vulnerability of Commercial Aviation to Attacks by
Terrorists Using Dangerous Goods, GAO- 03- 30C (Washington, D. C.: Dec. 3,
2002).
8 Freight forwarders consolidate shipments and deliver them to air
carriers and cargo facilities of passenger and all- cargo air carriers. 9
U. S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Security: Vulnerabilities and
Potential
Improvements for the Air Cargo System, GAO- 03- 344 (Washington, D. C.:
Dec. 20, 2002). 10 GAO- 03- 344.
Page 14 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
air cargo security that incorporates a risk management approach, includes
a list of security priorities, and sets deadlines for completing actions.
TSA agreed with this recommendation and expects to develop such a plan by
the fall of 2003. It will be important that this plan include a timetable
for implementation and that TSA expeditiously reduce the vulnerabilities
in this area.
Since September 2001, TSA has taken limited action to improve general
aviation security, leaving it far more open and potentially vulnerable
than commercial aviation. 11 General aviation is vulnerable because
general aviation pilots are not screened before takeoff and the contents
of general aviation planes are not screened at any point. General aviation
includes more than 200,000 privately owned airplanes, which are located in
every state at more than 19, 000 airports. Over 550 of these airports also
provide commercial service. In the last 5 years, about 70 aircraft have
been stolen
from general aviation airports, indicating a potential weakness that could
be exploited by terrorists. Moreover, it was reported that the September
11 hijackers researched the use of crop dusters to spread biological or
chemical agents. General aviation*s vulnerability was revealed in January
2002, when a Florida teenage flight student crashed a single- engine
Cessna airplane into a Tampa skyscraper.
FAA has since issued a notice with voluntary guidance for flight schools
and businesses that provide services for aircraft and pilots at general
aviation airports. The suggestions include using different keys to gain
access to an aircraft and start the ignition, not giving students access
to aircraft keys, ensuring positive identification of flight students, and
training employees and pilots to report suspicious activities. However,
because the guidance is voluntary, it is unknown how many general aviation
airports have implemented these measures.
We reported in June 2003 that TSA was working with industry stakeholders
as part of TSA*s Aviation Security Advisory Council to close potential
security gaps in general aviation. 12 According to our recent
11 For example, TSA issued a rule requiring that certain aircraft
operators using aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 12, 500 pounds
or more carry out security measures, including conducting criminal history
records checks on their flight crew members and restricting access to the
flight deck. This rule went into effect in April 2003.
12 U. S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Security: Federal
Action Needed to Help Address Security Challenges, GAO- 03- 843
(Washington, D. C.: June 30, 2003). General Aviation Security
Page 15 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
discussions with industry representatives, however, the stakeholders have
not been able to reach a consensus on the actions needed to improve
security in general aviation. General aviation industry representatives,
such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and General Aviation
Manufacturers Association, have opposed any restrictions on operating
general aviation aircraft and believe that small planes do not pose a
significant risk to the country. Nonetheless, some industry
representatives indicated that the application of a risk management
approach would be helpful in determining the next steps in improving
general aviation security. (We discuss risk management in more detail
later in this testimony.) To identify these next steps, TSA chartered a
working group on general aviation within the existing Aviation Security
Advisory Committee, and this working group is scheduled to report to the
full committee in the fall of 2003. We have ongoing work that is examining
general aviation security in further detail.
Page 16 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Figure 3: General Aviation Aircraft and Airport
Airport perimeters present a potential vulnerability by providing a route
for individuals to gain unauthorized access to aircraft and secure areas
of airports (see fig. 4). For example, in August 2003, the national media
reported that three boaters wandered the tarmac at Kennedy International
Airport after their boat became beached near a runway. In addition,
terrorists could launch an attack using a shoulder- fired missile from the
perimeter of an airport, as well as from locations just outside the
perimeter. For example, in separate incidents in the late 1970s,
guerrillas with shoulder- fired missiles shot down two Air Rhodesia
planes. More recently, the national media have reported that since
September 2001, al Airport Perimeter Security
Page 17 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Qaeda has twice tried to down planes outside the United States with
shoulder- fired missiles. 13 We reported in June 2003 that airport
operators have increased their
patrols of airport perimeters since September 2001, but industry officials
stated that they do not have enough resources to completely protect
against missile attacks. 14 A number of technologies could be used to
secure and monitor airport perimeters, including barriers, motion sensors,
and closed- circuit television. Airport representatives have cautioned
that as security enhancements are made to airport perimeters, it will be
important for TSA to coordinate with FAA and the airport operators to
ensure that any enhancements do not pose safety risks for aircraft. We
have separate ongoing work examining the status of efforts to improve
airport perimeter
security and assessing the nature and extent of the threat from
shoulderfired missiles.
13 The Department of Homeland Security is assessing proposals from eight
contractors for technology to protect commercial aircraft from shoulder-
fired missile attack. 14 GAO- 03- 843.
Page 18 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Figure 4: Airport Perimeter
TSA*s efforts to strengthen and sustain aviation security face several
longer- term challenges in the areas of risk management, funding,
coordination, strategic human capital management, and building a
resultsoriented organization. Aviation Security
Poses Longer- Term Management and Organizational Challenges
Page 19 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
As aviation security is viewed in the larger context of transportation and
homeland security, it will be important to set strategic priorities so
that national resources can be directed to the greatest needs. Although
TSA initially focused on increasing aviation security, it has more
recently begun to address security in the other transportation modes.
However, the size and diversity of the national transportation system make
it difficult to adequately secure, and TSA and the Congress are faced with
demands for additional federal funding for transportation security that
far exceed the additional amounts made available. We have advocated the
use of a risk management approach to guide federal programs and responses
to better prepare for and withstand terrorist threats, and we have
recommended that TSA use this approach to strengthen security in aviation
as well as in other transportation modes. 15 A risk management approach is
a systematic process to analyze threats, vulnerabilities, and the
criticality (or relative importance) of assets to better support key
decisions linking resources with prioritized efforts for results.
Comprehensive risk- based assessments support effective planning and
resource allocation. Figure 5 describes this approach.
Figure 5: Elements of a Risk Management Approach
15 U. S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: A Risk Management
Approach Can Guide Preparedness Efforts, GAO- 02- 208T (Washington, D. C.:
Oct. 31, 2001); and GAO- 03- 344. Risk Management
Page 20 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
TSA agreed with our recommendation and has adopted a risk management
approach in attempting to enhance security across all transportation
modes. TSA*s Office of Threat Assessment and Risk Management is developing
two assessment tools that will help assess criticality, threats, and
vulnerabilities. The first tool, which assesses criticality, will arrive
at a criticality score for a facility or transportation asset by
incorporating factors such as the number of fatalities that could occur
during an attack and the economic and sociopolitical importance of the
facility or asset.
This score will enable TSA, in conjunction with transportation
stakeholders, to rank facilities and assets within each mode and thus
focus resources on those that are deemed most important. TSA is working
with another Department of Homeland Security office* the Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate* to ensure that the
criticality tool will be consistent with the Department*s overall approach
for managing critical infrastructure. The second tool* the Transportation
Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Evaluation tool (TRAVEL)* will assess
threats and analyze vulnerabilities for all transportation modes. The tool
produces a relative risk score for potential attacks against a
transportation asset or facility. In addition, TRAVEL will include a cost-
benefit component that compares the cost of implementing a given
countermeasure with the reduction in relative risk due to that
countermeasure. We reported in June 2003 that TSA plans to use this tool
to gather comparable threat and vulnerability information across all
transportation modes. It is important for TSA to complete the development
of the two tools and use them to prepare action plans for specific modes,
such as aviation, and for transportation security generally.
Two key funding and accountability challenges will be (1) paying for
increased aviation security and (2) ensuring that these costs are
controlled. The costs associated with the equipment and personnel needed
to screen passengers and their baggage alone are huge. The administration
requested $4.2 billion for aviation security for fiscal year 2004, which
included about $1.8 billion for passenger screening and $944 million for
baggage screening. 16 ATSA created a passenger security fee to pay for the
costs of aviation security, but the fee has not generated enough money to
16 The House agreed to $3.7 billion in funding for TSA and the Senate
approved $4.5 billion. Funding
Page 21 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
do so. DOT*s Inspector General reported that the security fees are
estimated to generate only about $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2004. 17 A
major funding issue is paying for the purchase and installation of the
remaining explosives detection systems for the airports that received
waivers, as well as for the reinstallation of the systems that were placed
in airport lobbies last year and now need to be integrated into airport
baggage- handling systems. Integrating the equipment with the
baggagehandling systems is expected to be costly because it will require
major facility modifications. For example, modifications needed to
integrate the equipment at Boston*s Logan International Airport are
estimated to cost $146 million. Estimates for Dallas/ Fort Worth
International Airport are $193 million. DOT*s Inspector General has
reported that the cost of integrating the equipment nationwide could be as
high as $3 billion.
A key question is how to pay for these installation costs. Funds from
FAA*s AIP grants and passenger facility charges are eligible sources for
funding this work. 18 In fiscal year 2002, AIP grant funds totaling $561
million were used for terminal modifications to enhance security. However,
using these funds for security reduced the funding available for other
airport development projects, such as projects to bring airports up to
federal design standards and reconstruction projects. In February 2003, we
identified letters of intent 19 as a funding option that has been
successfully used to leverage private sources of funding. 20 TSA has since
signed letters of intent with three airports* Boston Logan, Dallas- Fort
Worth, and Seattle- Tacoma International Airports. Under the agreements,
TSA will pay 75 percent of the cost of integrating the explosives
detection equipment into the baggage- handling systems. The payments will
stretch out over 3 to 4 years. Airport representatives said that about 30
more airports have
17 TSA suspended the security fees from June 1 to September 30, 2003, as
mandated by the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003.
18 With FAA*s approval, commercial airports may charge boarding passengers
a fee of up to $4.50 per trip segment to raise funds for airport capital
development. 19 A letter of intent represents a nonbinding commitment from
an agency to provide
multiyear funding to an entity beyond the current authorization period.
Thus, that letter allows an airport to proceed with a project without
waiting for future federal funds because the airport and investors know
that allowable costs are likely to be reimbursed.
20 U. S. General Accounting Office, Airport Finance: Past Funding Levels
May Not Be Sufficient to Cover Airports* Planned Capital Development, GAO-
03- 497T (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 25, 2003).
Page 22 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
requested similar agreements. The slow pace of TSA*s approval process has
raised concerns about delays in reinstalling and integrating explosives
detection equipment with baggage- handling systems* delays that will
require more labor- intensive and less efficient baggage screening by
other approved means.
To provide financial assistance to airports for security- related capital
investments, such as the installation of explosives detection equipment,
proposed aviation reauthorization legislation 21 would establish an
aviation security capital fund that would authorize $2 billion over the
next 4 years. The funding would be made available to airports in letters
of intent, and
large- and medium- hub airports would be expected to provide a match of 10
percent of a project*s costs. A 5 percent match would be required for all
other airports. This legislation would provide a dedicated source of
funding for security- related capital investments and could minimize the
need to use AIP funds for security.
An additional funding issue is how to ensure continued investment in
transportation research and development. For fiscal year 2003, TSA was
appropriated about $110 million for research and development, of which $75
million was designated for the next- generation explosives detection
systems. However, TSA has proposed to reprogram $61.2 million of these
funds to be used for other purposes, leaving about $12.7 million to be
spent on research and development this year. This proposed reprogramming
could limit TSA*s ability to sustain and strengthen aviation security by
continuing to invest in research and development for more effective
equipment to screen passengers, their carry- on and checked baggage, and
cargo. In ongoing work, we are examining the nature and
scope of research and development work by TSA and the Department of
Homeland Security, including their strategy for accelerating the
development of transportation security technologies.
By reprogramming funds and making acknowledged use of certain funds for
purposes other than those intended, TSA has raised congressional concerns
about accountability. According to TSA, it has proposed to reprogram a
total of $849.3 million during fiscal year 2003, including the $61.2
million that would be cut from research and development and $104 million
that would be taken from the federal air marshal program and used for
unintended purposes. Because of these congressional concerns, we
21 The proposed Vision 100* Century of Aviation Reauthorization* Act, H.
R. 2115.
Page 23 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
were asked to investigate TSA*s process for reprogramming funds for the
air marshal program and to assess the implications of the proposed funding
reductions in areas such as the numbers of hours flown and flights taken.
We have ongoing work to address these issues. To ensure appropriate
oversight and accountability, it is important that TSA maintain clear and
transparent communication with the Congress and industry stakeholders
about the use of its funds.
In July 2002, we reported that long- term attention to cost and
accountability controls for acquisition and related business processes
will be critical for TSA, both to ensure its success and to maintain its
integrity and accountability. 22 According to DOT*s Inspector General,
although TSA has made progress in addressing certain cost- related issues,
it has not established an infrastructure that provides effective controls
to monitor contractors* costs and performance. 23 For example, in February
2003, the Inspector General reported that TSA*s $1 billion hiring effort
cost more than most people expected and that TSA*s contract with NCS
Pearson to recruit, assess, and hire the screener workforce contained no
safeguards
to prevent cost increases. The Inspector General found that TSA provided
limited oversight for the management of the contract expenses and, in one
case, between $6 million and $9 million of the $18 million paid to a
subcontractor appeared to be a result of wasteful and abusive spending
practices. 24 As the Inspector General recommended, TSA has since hired
the Defense Contract Audit Agency to audit its major contracts. To ensure
control over TSA contracts, the Inspector General has further recommended
that the Congress set aside a specific amount of TSA*s contracting budget
for overseeing contractors* performance with respect to cost, schedule,
and quality. 25 22 U. S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Security:
Transportation Security Administration Faces Immediate and Long- Term
Challenges, GAO- 02- 971T (Washington,
D. C.: July 25, 2002). 23 Aviation Security Costs, Transportation Security
Administration, statement of the Honorable Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector
General, U. S. Department of Transportation, before the Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation, Subcommittee on Aviation, U. S.
Senate, Feb. 5, 2003 (CC- 2003- 066). 24 DOT Inspector General, CC- 2003-
066.
25 Office of Inspector General, DOT, Report on Oversight of Security
Screener Contracts, TSA, FI- 2003- 025 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 28, 2003).
Page 24 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Sustaining the aviation security advancements of the past 2 years also
depends on TSA*s ability to form effective partnerships with federal,
state, and local agencies and with the aviation community. Effective,
wellcoordinated partnerships at the local level require identifying roles
and responsibilities; developing effective, collaborative relationships
with local and regional airports and emergency management and law
enforcement agencies; agreeing on performance- based standards that
describe desired outcomes; and sharing intelligence information. The
lynchpin in TSA*s efforts to coordinate with airports and local law
enforcement and emergency response agencies is, according to the agency,
the 158 federal security directors and staff that TSA has deployed
nationwide. The
security directors* responsibilities include ensuring that standardized
security procedures are implemented at the nation*s airports; working with
state and local law enforcement personnel, when appropriate, to ensure
airport and passenger security; and communicating threat information to
airport operators and others. Airport representatives, however, have
indicated that the relationships between federal security directors and
airport operators are still evolving and that better communication is
needed at some airports.
Key to improving the coordination between TSA and local partners is
establishing clearly defined roles. In some cases, concerns have arisen
about conflicts between the roles of TSA, as the manager of security
functions at airports, and of airport officials, as the managers of other
airport operations. Industry representatives viewed such conflicts as
leading to confusion in areas such as communicating with local entities.
According to airport representatives, for example, TSA has developed
guidance or rules for airports without involving them, and time- consuming
changes have then had to be made to accommodate operational factors. The
representatives maintain that it would be more efficient and effective
to consider such operational factors earlier in the process. Ultimately,
inadequate coordination and unclear roles result in inefficient uses of
limited resources.
TSA also has to ensure that the terrorist and threat information gathered
and maintained by law enforcement and other agencies* including the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of State* is
quickly and efficiently communicated among federal agencies and to state
and local authorities, as needed. Disseminating such information is
important to allow those who are involved in protecting the nation*s
aviation system to address potential threats rather than simply react to
known threats. Coordination
Page 25 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
In aviation security, timely information sharing among agencies has been
hampered by the agencies* reluctance to share sensitive information and by
outdated, incompatible computer systems. As we found in reviewing 12 watch
lists maintained by nine federal agencies, information was being shared
among some of them but not among others. Moreover, even when sharing was
occurring, costly and overly complex measures had to be taken to
facilitate it. 26 To promote better integration and sharing of terrorist
and criminal watch lists, we have recommended that the Department of
Homeland Security, in collaboration with the other departments and
agencies that have and use watch lists, lead an effort to consolidate and
standardize the federal government*s watch list structures and policies.
27 In addition, as we found earlier this year, representatives of numerous
state and local governments and transportation industry associations
indicated that the general threat warnings received by government agencies
are not helpful. Rather, they said, transportation operators, including
airport operators, want more specific intelligence information so that
they can understand the true nature of a potential threat and implement
appropriate security measures. 28 As it organizes itself to protect the
nation*s transportation system, TSA
faces the challenge of strategically managing its workforce of more than
60,000 people, most of whom are deployed at airports or on aircraft to
detect weapons and explosives and to prevent them from being taken aboard
and used on aircraft. Additionally, over the next several years, TSA
faces the challenge of *right- sizing* this workforce as efficiency is
improved with new security- enhancing technologies, processes, and
procedures. For example, as explosives detection systems are integrated
with baggage- handling systems, the use of more labor- intensive screening
methods, such as trace detection techniques and manual searches of
baggage, can be reduced. Other planned security enhancements, such as
CAPPS II and the registered traveler program, also have the potential to
make screening more efficient.
26 GAO- 03- 322. 27 U. S. General Accounting Office, Information
Technology: Terrorist Watch Lists Should Be Consolidated to Promote Better
Integration and Sharing, GAO- 03- 322 (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 15, 2003).
28 GAO- 03- 843. Strategic Human Capital
Management
Page 26 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
To assist agencies in managing their human capital more strategically, we
have developed a model that identifies cornerstones and related critical
success factors that agencies should apply and steps they can take. 29 Our
model is designed to help agency leaders effectively lead and manage their
people and integrate human capital considerations into daily
decisionmaking and the program results they seek to achieve.
In January 2003, we reported that TSA was addressing some critical human
capital success factors by hiring personnel, using a wide range of tools
available for hiring, and beginning to link individual performance to
organizational goals. 30 However, concerns remain about the size and
training of that workforce, the adequacy of the initial background checks
for screeners, and TSA*s progress in setting up a performance management
system. As noted earlier in this testimony, TSA now plans to reduce its
screener workforce by 6,000 by September 30, 2003, and it has proposed
cutting the workforce by an additional 3,000 in fiscal year 2004. This
planned reduction has raised concerns about passenger delays at airports
and has led TSA to begin hiring part- time screeners to make more
flexible and efficient use of its workforce. In addition, TSA used an
abbreviated background check process to hire and deploy enough screeners
to meet ATSA*s screening deadlines in 2002. After obtaining additional
background information, TSA terminated the employment of some of these
screeners. TSA reported 1,208 terminations as of May 31, 2003, that it
ascribed to a variety of reasons, including criminal offenses and failures
to pass alcohol and drug tests. Furthermore, the national media have
reported allegations of operational and management control problems that
emerged with the expansion of the Federal Air Marshal Service, including
inadequate background checks and training, uneven scheduling, and
inadequate policies and procedures. In ongoing work, we are examining the
effectiveness of TSA*s efforts to train, equip, and supervise passenger
screeners, and we are assessing the effects of expansion on the Federal
Air Marshal Service. In addition, we reported in January 2003 that TSA had
taken the initial steps in establishing a performance management system
linked to organizational goals. Such a system will be critical for TSA to
motivate and manage staff, ensure the
29 U. S. General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human Capital
Management,
GAO- 02- 373SP (Washington, D. C.: March 2002). 30 U. S. General
Accounting Office, Transportation Security Administration: Actions and
Plans to Build a Results- Oriented Culture, GAO- 03- 190 (Washington, D.
C.: Jan. 13, 2003).
Page 27 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
quality of screeners* performance, and, ultimately, restore public
confidence in air travel.
For TSA to sustain enhanced aviation security over the long term, it will
be important for the agency to continue to build a results- oriented
culture within the new Department of Homeland Security. To help federal
agencies successfully transform their cultures, as well as the new
Department of Homeland Security merge its various components into a
unified department, we identified key practices that have consistently
been found at the center of successful mergers, acquisitions, and
transformations. 31 These key practices, together with implementation
strategies such as establishing a coherent mission and integrated
strategic goals to guide the transformation, can help agencies become more
results oriented, customer focused, and collaborative. (See app. III.)
These practices are particularly important for the Department of Homeland
Security, whose implementation and transformation we have designated as
high risk. 32 The Congress required TSA to adopt a results- oriented
strategic planning
and reporting framework and, specifically, to provide an action plan with
goals and milestones to outline how acceptable levels of performance for
aviation security would be achieved. In prior work, we reported that TSA
has taken the first steps in performance planning and reporting by
defining its mission, vision, and values and that this practice would
continue to be
important when TSA moved into the Department of Homeland Security. 33
Therefore, we recommended that TSA take the next steps to implement
results- oriented practices. These steps included establishing performance
goals and measures for all modes of transportation as part of a strategic
planning process that involves stakeholders, defining more clearly the
roles and responsibilities of its various offices in collaborating and
communicating with stakeholders; and formalizing the roles and
responsibilities of governmental entities for transportation security.
Table
31 U. S. General Accounting Office, Results- Oriented Cultures:
Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations,
GAO- 03- 669 (Washington, D. C.: July 2, 2003).
32 U. S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Department of Homeland Security, GAO- 03- 102 (Washington,
D. C.: Jan. 1, 2003). 33 GAO- 03- 190. Building a ResultsOriented
Organization
Page 28 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
1 shows selected ATSA requirements, TSA*s actions and plans, and the next
steps we recommended. TSA agreed with our recommendations.
Table 1: Requirements, Actions and Plans, and Recommended Next Steps for
Results- Oriented Practices ATSA requirements TSA actions and plans Next
steps
Leadership commitment to creating a high- performing organization
Requires performance agreement between the Secretary of DOT and the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Security and between the Under
Secretary and TSA executives.
Stated leadership commitment to creating a results- oriented culture in
its 180- day action plan.
Expressed plans to use the Baldrige performance excellence criteria as a
management tool to promote quality and performance.
Established standardized performance agreements for TSA executives.
Establish a performance agreement for the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security that articulates how bonuses will be tied to
performance.
Add expectations in performance agreements for top leadership to foster
the culture of a high- performing organization.
Strategic planning to establish results- oriented goals and measures
Requires a 5- year performance plan and annual performance report
consistent with the principles of the Government Performance and Results
Act.
Articulated vision, mission, values, strategic goal, and performance
goals and measures.
Developed automated system to collect performance data to demonstrate
progress in meeting goals.
Aligned aviation security performance goals and measures with DOT goals.
Reported it submitted first annual performance report.
Establish security performance goals and measures for all modes of
transportation as part of a strategic planning process that involves
stakeholders.
Apply practices that have been shown to provide useful information in
agency
performance plans.
Performance management to promote accountability for results
Requires a performance management system.
Requires performance agreements for all employees that include
organizational and individual goals.
Established an interim performance management system.
Created standardized performance agreements for groups of employees that
include organizational and individual goals and standards of performance.
Build on the current
performance agreements to achieve additional benefits.
Ensure the permanent performance management system makes meaningful
distinctions in performance.
Involve employees in developing its permanent performance management
system.
Page 29 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
ATSA requirements TSA actions and plans Next steps Collaboration and
communication to achieve national outcomes
Requires TSA to work within and outside the government to accomplish its
mission.
Establishes a Transportation Security Oversight Board to facilitate
collaboration and communication. Established Offices of Security
Regulation
and Policy, Communications and Public Information, Law Enforcement and
Security Liaison, and Legislative Affairs to collaborate and communicate
with stakeholders.
Convened the Oversight Board, which has met twice.
Stated plans to use memorandums of understanding and memorandums of
agreement to formalize roles and responsibilities of TSA and other
agencies in transportation security.
Define more clearly the collaboration and communication roles and
responsibilities of TSA*s various offices.
Formalize roles and responsibilities among governmental entities for
transportation security.
Public reporting and customer service to build citizen confidence
Requires a 180- day action plan and two progress reports within 6 months
of enactment.
Submitted 180- day action plan and both progress reports within
established time frames.
Maintains a Web site to provide information to the public.
Created ombudsman position to serve customers.
Developed measures to track customer satisfaction.
Reviewed and eliminated security procedures that do not enhance security
or customer service.
Stated plans to develop a customer satisfaction index to analyze
customer opinions to improve performance.
Fill the ombudsman position to facilitate responsiveness of TSA to the
public.
Continue to develop and implement mechanisms, such as the CSI, to gauge
customer satisfaction and improve customer service.
Source: GAO. After spending billions of dollars over the past 2 years on
people, policies, and procedures to improve aviation security, we have
much more security now than we had before September 2001, but it has not
been determined how much more secure we are. The vast number of guns,
knives, and other potential threat items that screeners have confiscated
suggests that security is working, but it also suggests that improved
public awareness of prohibited items could help focus resources where they
are most needed and reduce delays and inconvenience to the public. Faced
with vast and competing demands for security resources, TSA should
continue its efforts to identify technologies, such as CAPPS II, that will
leverage its resources and potentially improve its capabilities. Improving
the efficiency and effectiveness of aviation security will also require
risk assessments and plans that help maintain a balance between security
and customer service. Concluding
Observations
Page 30 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions that you or other members of the Committee may have.
For further information on this testimony, please contact Gerald L.
Dillingham at (202) 512- 2834. Individuals making key contributions to
this testimony include Elizabeth Eisenstadt, David Hooper, Jennifer Kim,
Heather Krause, Maren McAvoy, John W. Shumann, and Teresa Spisak. Contact
Information
Page 31 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Deadline Provisions a Status
Nov. 19, 2001 Require new background checks for those who have access to
secure areas of the airport. Completed
Institute a 45- day waiting period for aliens seeking flight training for
planes of 12,500 pounds or more. Completed
Dec. 19, 2001 Establish qualifications for federal screeners. Completed
Report to the Congress on improving general aviation security. Completed
Jan. 18, 2002 Screen all checked baggage in U. S. airports using
explosives detection systems,
passenger- bag matching, manual searches, canine units, or other approved
means. Completed The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is to develop
guidance for air carriers to use in developing programs to train flight
and cabin crews to resist threats (within 60 days after FAA issues the
guidance, each airline is to develop a training program and submit it to
FAA; within 30 days of receiving a program, FAA is to approve it or
require revisions; within 180 days of receiving FAA*s approval, the
airline is to complete the training of all flight and cabin crews).
Guidance issued Develop a plan to train federal screeners. Completed
Foreign and domestic carriers are to provide electronic passenger and crew
manifests to Customs for flights from foreign countries to the United
States. Completed
Begin collecting the passenger security fee. Completed Feb. 17, 2002 The
Under Secretary is to assume civil aviation security functions from FAA.
Completed
Implement an aviation security program for charter carriers. Completed
Begin awarding grants for security- related research and development.
Completed The National Institute of Justice is to report to the Secretary
on less- than- lethal weapons for flight crew members. Completed
May 18, 2002 Report to the Congress on the deployment of baggage screening
equipment. Report submitted
Report to the Congress on progress in evaluating and taking the
following optional actions: Report submitted
Require 911 capability for onboard passenger telephones. Completed
Establish uniform IDs for law enforcement personnel carrying weapons on
planes or in secure areas.
Ongoing
Establish requirements for trusted traveler programs. Ongoing
Develop alternative security procedures to avoid damage to medical
products. Completed
Provide for the use of secure communications technologies to inform
airport security forces about passengers who are identified on security
databases.
Ongoing
Require pilot licenses to include a photograph and biometric
identifiers. Ongoing
Use voice stress analysis, biometric, or other technologies to prevent
high- risk passengers from boarding.
Ongoing
Provide for the use of instant communications technology between planes
and ground.
Ongoing
Appendix I: Selected Deadlines in the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act and Their Status
Page 32 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Deadline Provisions a Status
Nov. 19, 2002 Deploy federal screeners, security managers, and law
enforcement officers to screen passengers and property. Completed
Report to the Congress on screening for small aircraft with 60 or fewer
seats. Report submitted Establish pilot program to contract with private
screening companies (program to last until Nov. 19, 2004). Completed
Dec. 31, 2002 Screen all checked baggage by explosives detection systems.
Ongoing No deadline Carriers are to transfer screening property to TSA.
Completed
FAA is to issue an order prohibiting access to the flight deck, requiring
strengthened cabin doors, requiring that cabin doors remain locked, and
prohibiting possession of a key for all but the flight deck crew.
Completed Improve perimeter screening of all individuals, goods, property,
and vehicles. Ongoing Screen all cargo on passenger flights and cargo-
only flights. Ongoing Establish procedures for notifying FAA, state and
local law enforcement officers, and airport security of known threats.
Completed
Establish procedures for airlines to identify passengers who pose a
potential security threat. Ongoing
FAA is to develop and implement methods for using cabin video monitors,
continuously operating transponders, and notifying flight deck crew of a
hijacking. Ongoing
Require flight training schools to conduct security awareness programs for
employees. Completed Work with airport operators to strengthen access
control points and consider deploying technology to improve security
access. Ongoing
Provide operational testing for screeners. Ongoing Assess dual- use items
that seem harmless but could be dangerous and inform screening personnel.
Ongoing
Establish a system for measuring staff performance. Ongoing Establish
management accountability for meeting performance goals. Ongoing
Periodically review threats to civil aviation, including chemical and
biological weapons. Ongoing Source: TSA.
a Except where otherwise indicated, the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) is responsible for implementing the provisions.
Page 33 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges H. R.
2144 - Aviation Security Technical Corrections and
Improvements Act - Many of the important provisions of this bill have been
incorporated into the Conference Report version of the FAA Reauthorization
Act, H. R. 2115.
S. 1409 - Rebuild America Act of 2003 - Establishes a new grant program in
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for airport security
improvements, including projects to replace baggage conveyer systems and
projects to reconfigure terminal baggage areas as needed to install
explosives detection systems. The Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security is authorized to issue letters of intent to
airports for these types of projects. One billion dollars is authorized
for this program.
H. R. 2555 - House and Senate versions of the Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act for 2004
House version - Makes fiscal year 2004 appropriations of $3.679 billion
for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to provide civil
aviation security services (aviation security, federal air marshals,
maritime and land security, intelligence, research and development, and
administration):
$1.673 billion for passenger screening activities, $1.285 billion for
baggage screening activities, $721 million for airport support and
enforcement presence, $235 million for physical modifications of
airports to provide for the
installation of checked baggage explosives detection systems, and $100
million for the procurement of the explosives detection systems.
Continues to cap the number of screeners at 45,000 full- time equivalent
positions.
Prohibits the use of funds authorized in this act to pursue or adopt
regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide, without cost to TSA,
building construction, maintenance, utilities and expenses, or space for
services relating to aviation security (excluding space for necessary
checkpoints).
Senate Version of H. R. 2555 - Makes fiscal year 2004 appropriations of
$4.524 billion for TSA to provide civil aviation security services:
$3.185 billion for screening activities, Appendix II: Bills Related to
Aviation
Security
Page 34 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
$1.339 billion for airport support and enforcement presence, $309
million for physical modifications of airports to provide for the
installation of checked baggage explosives detection systems, and $151
million for the procurement of the explosives detection systems.
Prohibits the use of funds authorized in this act to pursue or adopt
regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide, without cost to TSA,
building construction, maintenance, utilities and expenses, or space for
services relating to aviation security (excluding space for necessary
checkpoints).
Prohibits the use of funds authorized in this act for the Computer
Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) until GAO has reported
to the Committees on Appropriations that certain requirements have been
met, including (1) the existence of a system of due process by which
passengers considered to pose a threat may appeal their delay or
prohibition from boarding a flight; (2) that the underlying error rate of
databases will not produce a large number of false positives that will
result in a significant number of passengers being treated mistakenly or
security resources being diverted; (3) that TSA has stressed- tested and
demonstrated the efficacy and predictive accuracy of all search tools in
CAPPS II; and (4) that the Secretary has established an internal oversight
board to monitor the manner in which CAPPS II is being developed and
prepared.
Requires a report from the Secretary of Homeland Security on actions taken
to develop countermeasures for commercial aircraft against shoulder- fired
missile systems and vulnerability assessments of this threat for larger
airports.
H. R. 2115 - Flight 100 - Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act -
Conference Report version - Gives FAA the authority to take a certificate
action if it is notified by DHS that the holder of the certificate
presents a security threat.
Gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to make grants to
general aviation entities (including airports, operators, and
manufacturers) to reimburse them for security costs incurred and revenues
lost because of restrictions imposed by the federal government in response
to the events of September 11. The bill authorizes $100 million for these
grants.
Authorizes DHS to reimburse air carriers and airports for all security
screening activities they are still performing, such as for providing
catering
Page 35 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
services and checking documents at security checkpoints and for providing
the space and facilities used to perform screening functions to the extent
funds are available.
Requires air carriers to carry out a training program for flight and cabin
crews to prepare for possible threat conditions. TSA is required to
establish minimum standards for this training within 1 year of the act*s
passage.
Requires DHS to report in 6 months on the effectiveness of aviation
security, specifically including the air marshal program; hardening of
cockpit doors; and security screening of passengers, checked baggage, and
cargo.
Establishes within DHS a grant program to airport sponsors for (1)
projects to replace baggage conveyer systems related to aviation security;
(2) projects to reconfigure terminal baggage areas as needed to install
explosives detection systems; and (3) projects to enable the Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security to deploy explosives
detection systems behind the ticket counter, in the baggage sorting area,
or in line with the baggage handling system. Requires $250 million
annually from the existing aviation security fee that is paid by airline
passengers to be deposited in an Aviation Security Capital Fund and made
available to finance this grant program. Requires TSA to certify that
civil liberty and privacy issues have been
addressed before implementing CAPPS II and requires GAO to assess TSA*s
compliance 3 months after TSA makes the required certification.
Allows cargo pilots to carry guns under the same program for pilots of
passenger airlines. Permits an off- duty pilot to transport the gun in a
lockbox in the passenger cabin rather than in the baggage hold. Also
provides that both passenger and cargo pilots should be treated equitably
in their access to training.
Requires security audits of all foreign repair stations within 18 months
after TSA issues rules governing the audits. The rules must be issued
within 240 days of enactment.
Requires background checks on aliens seeking flight training in aircraft
regardless of the size of the aircraft. For all training on small
aircraft, includes a notification requirement but no waiting period. For
training on larger aircraft, adopts an expedited procedure if the
applicant already has
Page 36 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
training, a license, or a background check, and adopts a 30- day waiting
period for first- time training on large aircraft. Makes TSA responsible
for the background check. Requires TSA to issue an interim final rule in
60 days to implement this section. This section takes effect when that
rule becomes effective. S. 236 - Background Checks for Foreign Flight
School Applicants -
Amends federal aviation law to require a background check of alien flight
school applicants without regard to the maximum certificated weight of the
aircraft for which they seek training. (Currently, a background check is
required for flight crews operating aircraft with a maximum certificated
takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more.)
S. 165 - Air Cargo Security Act - House companion bill (H. R. 1103) Amends
federal aviation law to require the screening of cargo that is to be
transported in passenger aircraft operated by domestic and foreign air
carriers in interstate air transportation. Directs TSA to develop a
strategic plan to carry out such screening. Requires the establishment of
systems that (1) provide for the regular inspection of shipping facilities
for cargo shipments; (2) provide an industrywide pilot program database of
known shippers of cargo; (3) train persons that handle air cargo to ensure
that such cargo is properly handled and safeguarded from security
breaches; and (4) require air carriers operating all- cargo aircraft to
have an approved plan for the security of their air operations area, the
cargo placed aboard the aircraft, and persons having access to their
aircraft on the ground or in flight.
H. R. 1366 - Aviation Industry Stabilization Act - Requires the Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, after all cockpit doors
are strengthened, to consider and report to the Congress on whether it is
necessary to require federal air marshals to be seated in the first class
cabin of an aircraft with strengthened cockpit doors.
Requires the Under Secretary to (1) undertake action necessary to improve
the screening of mail so that it can be carried on passenger flights and
(2) reimburse air carriers for certain screening and related activities,
as well as the cost of fortifying cockpit doors, and for any financial
losses attributed to the loss of air traffic resulting from the use of
force against Iraq in calendar year 2003.
Establishes an air cargo security working group composed of various groups
to develop recommendations on the enhancement of the current known shipper
program.
Page 37 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges H. R. 115
- Aviation Biometric Badge Act - Amends federal aviation
law to direct TSA to require by regulation that each security screener (or
employee who has unescorted access, or may permit other individuals to
have unescorted access, to an aircraft or a secured area of the airport)
be issued a biometric security badge that identifies a person by
fingerprint or retinal recognition.
H. R. 1049 - Arming Cargo Pilots Against Terrorism Act - Senate companion
bill (S. 516) - Expresses the sense of Congress that a flight deck crew
member of a cargo aircraft should be armed with a firearm to
defend such aircraft against attacks by terrorists that could use the
aircraft as a weapon of mass destruction or for other terrorist purposes.
Amends federal transportation law to authorize the training and arming of
flight deck crew members (pilots) of all- cargo air transportation flights
to prevent acts of criminal violence or air piracy.
H. R. 765 - (No title) - Legislation to arm cargo pilots - Amends federal
aviation law to allow cargo pilots (not just air passenger pilots) to
participate in the federal flight deck officer program.
H. R. 580 - Commercial Airline Missile Defense Act - Senate companion bill
- S. 311 - Directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations
that require all turbojet aircraft of air carriers to be equipped with a
missile defense system. Requires the Secretary to purchase such defense
systems and make them available to all air carriers. Sets forth certain
interim security measures to be taken before the deployment of such
defense systems.
Page 38 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Practice Implementation step
Ensure top leadership drives the transformation. Define and articulate a
succinct and compelling reason for change.
Balance continued delivery of services with merger and transformation
activities.
Establish a coherent mission and integrated strategic goals to guide the
transformation.
Adopt leading practices for results- oriented strategic planning and
reporting.
Focus on a key set of principles and priorities at the outset of the
transformation.
Embed core values in every aspect of the organization to reinforce the
new culture.
Set implementation goals and a time line to build momentum and show
progress from day one.
Make public implementation goals and a time line.
Seek and monitor employee attitudes and take appropriate follow- up
actions.
dentify cultural features of merging organizations to increase
understanding of former work environments.
Attract and retain key talent.
Establish an organizationwide knowledge and skills inventory to exchange
knowledge among merging organizations.
Dedicate an implementation team to manage the transformation process.
Establish networks to support the implementation team.
Select high- performing team members. Use the performance management
system to define responsibility and ensure accountability for change.
Adopt leading practices to implement effective performance management
systems with adequate safeguards.
Establish a communication strategy to create shared expectations and
report related progress.
Communicate early and often to build trust.
Ensure consistency of message.
Encourage two- way communication.
Provide information to meet specific needs of employees. Involve
employees to obtain their ideas and gain their ownership for the
transformation.
Use employee teams.
Involve employees in planning and sharing performance information.
Incorporate employee feedback into new policies and procedures.
Delegate authority to appropriate organizational levels. Build a world-
class organization. Adopt leading practices to build a world- class
organization. Source: GAO. Appendix III: Key Practices and Implementation
Steps for Mergers and
Organizational Transformations
Page 39 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
Transportation Security Research and Development Programs at
DHS and TSA
Key Questions: (1) What were the strategy and organizational structure for
transportation security research and development (R& D) prior to 9/ 11 and
what is the current strategy and structure? (2) How do DHS and TSA select
their transportation security R& D projects and what projects are in their
portfolios? (3) What are DHS*s and TSA*s goals and strategies for
accelerating the development of transportation security technologies? (4)
What are the nature and scope of coordination of R& D efforts between DHS
and TSA, as well as with other public and private sector research
organizations?
Federal Air Marshal Service
Key Questions: (1) How has the federal air marshal program evolved, in
terms of recruiting, training, retention, and operations since its
management was transferred to TSA? (2) To what extent has TSA implemented
the internal controls needed to meet the program*s operational and
management control challenges? (3) To what extent has TSA developed plans
and initiatives to sustain the program and accommodate its future growth
and maturation?
TSA Baggage Screening
Key Questions: (1) What are the status and associated costs of TSA*s
efforts to acquire, install, and operate explosives detection equipment
(electronic trace detection technology and explosives detection systems)
to screen all checked baggage by December 31, 2003? (2) What are the
benefits and trade- offs* to include costs, operations, and performance*
of using alternative explosives detection technologies currently available
for baggage screening?
Reprogramming of Air Marshal Program Funds
Key Questions: (1) Describe the internal preparation, review, and approval
process for DHS*s reprogrammings and, specifically, the process for the
May 15 and July 25 reprogramming requests for the air marshal program. (2)
Determine whether an impoundment or deferral notice should have
been sent to the Congress and any other associated legal issues. (3)
Identify the implications, for both the air marshal program and other
programs, of the pending reprogramming request. Appendix IV: GAO Active
Engagements
Related to Aviation Security
Page 40 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges General
Aviation Security
Key Questions: (1) How have security concerns and measures changed at
general aviation airports since September 11, 2001? (2) What steps has TSA
taken to improve general aviation security?
Background Checks for Banner- Towing Aircraft
Key Questions: (1) What are the procedures for conducting background and
security checks for pilots of small banner- towing aircraft requesting
waivers to perform stadium overflights? (2) To what extent have these
procedures been followed in conducting required background and security
checks since September 11, 2001? (3) How effective have these procedures
been in reducing risks to public safety?
TSA*s Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II)
Key Questions: (1) How will the CAPPS II system function and what data
will be needed to make the system operationally effective? (2) What
safeguards will be put in place to protect the traveling public*s privacy?
(3) What systems and measures are in place to determine whether CAPPS II
will result in improved national security? (4) What impact will CAPPS II
have on the traveling public and on the airline industry in terms of
costs, delays, risks, inconvenience, and other factors?
TSA Passengers Screening Program
Key Questions: (1) What efforts have been taken or planned to ensure that
passenger screeners comply with federal standards and other criteria,
including efforts to train, equip, and supervise passenger screeners? (2)
What methods does TSA use to test screeners* performance, and what have
been the results of these tests? (3) How have the results of tests of TSA
passenger screeners compared with the results achieved by screeners before
September 11, 2001, and at five pilot program airports? (4) What actions
is TSA taking to remedy performance concerns?
TSA*s Efforts to Implement Sections 106, 136, and 138 of the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act
Key Questions: What is the status of TSA*s efforts to implement (1)
section 106 of the act requiring improved airport perimeter access
security, (2) section 136 requiring the assessment and deployment of
Page 41 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and Challenges
commercially available security practices and technologies, and (3)
section 138 requiring background investigations for TSA and other airport
employees?
Assessment of the Portable Air Defense Missile Threat
Key Questions: (1) What are the nature and extent of the threat from
manportable air defense systems (MANPAD)? (2) How effective are U. S.
controls on the use of exported MANPADs? (3) How do multilateral efforts
attempt to stem MANPAD proliferation? (4) What types of countermeasures
are available to minimize this threat and at what cost?
Airline Assistance Determination of Whether the $5 Billion Provided by P.
L. 107- 42 Was Used to Compensate the Nation*s Major Air Carriers for
Their Losses Stemming from the Events of Sept. 11, 2001
Key Questions: (1) Was the $5 billion used only to compensate major air
carriers for their uninsured losses incurred as a result of the terrorist
attacks? (2) Were carriers reimbursed, per the act, only for increases in
insurance premiums resulting from the attacks?
TSA*s Use of Sole- Source Contracts
Key Questions: (1) To what extent does TSA follow applicable acquisition
laws and policies, including those for ensuring adequate competition? (2)
How well does TSA*s organizational structure facilitate effective,
efficient procurement? (3) How does TSA ensure that its acquisition
workforce is equipped to award and oversee contracts? (4) How well do
TSA*s policies and processes ensure that TSA receives the supplies and
services it needs on time and at reasonable cost?
Related GAO Products Page 42 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and
Challenges
Transportation Security: Federal Action Needed to Help Address Security
Challenges. GAO- 03- 843. Washington, D. C.: June 30, 2003.
Transportation Security: Post- September 11th Initiatives and LongTerm
Challenges. GAO- 03- 616T. Washington, D. C.: April 1, 2003.
Aviation Security: Measures Needed to Improve Security of Pilot
Certification Process. GAO- 03- 248NI. Washington, D. C.: February 3,
2003. (NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION)
Aviation Security: Vulnerabilities and Potential Improvements for the Air
Cargo System. GAO- 03- 286NI. Washington, D. C.: December 20, 2002. (NOT
FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION)
Aviation Security: Vulnerabilities and Potential Improvements for the Air
Cargo System. GAO- 03- 344. Washington, D. C.: December 20, 2002.
Aviation Security: Vulnerability of Commercial Aviation to Attacks by
Terrorists Using Dangerous Goods. GAO- 03- 30C. Washington, D. C.:
December 3, 2002.
Aviation Security: Registered Traveler Program Policy and Implementation
Issues. GAO- 03- 253. Washington, D. C.: November 22, 2002.
Aviation Security: Transportation Security Administration Faces Immediate
and Long- Term Challenges. GAO- 02- 971T. Washington, D. C.: July 25,
2002.
Aviation Security: Information Concerning the Arming of Commercial Pilots.
GA0- 02- 822R. Washington, D. C.: June 28, 2002.
Aviation Security: Deployment and Capabilities of Explosive Detection
Equipment. GAO- 02- 713C. Washington, D. C.: June 20, 2002. (CLASSIFIED)
Aviation Security: Information on Vulnerabilities in the Nation*s Air
Transportation System. GAO- 01- 1164T. Washington, D. C.: September 26,
2001. (NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION)
Aviation Security: Information on the Nation*s Air Transportation System
Vulnerabilities. GAO- 01- 1174T. Washington, D. C.: September 26, 2001.
(NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION) Related GAO Products
Aviation Security
Related GAO Products Page 43 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and
Challenges
Aviation Security: Vulnerabilities in, and Alternatives for, Preboard
Screening Security Operations. GAO- 01- 1171T. Washington, D. C.:
September 25, 2001.
Aviation Security: Weaknesses in Airport Security and Options for
Assigning Screening Responsibilities. GAO- 01- 1165T. Washington, D. C.:
September 21, 2001.
Aviation Security: Terrorist Acts Demonstrate Urgent Need to Improve
Security at the Nation*s Airports. GAO- 01- 1162T. Washington, D. C.:
September 20, 2001.
Aviation Security: Terrorist Acts Illustrate Severe Weaknesses in Aviation
Security. GAO- 01- 1166T. Washington, D. C.: September 20, 2001.
Responses of Federal Agencies and Airports We Surveyed about Access
Security Improvements. GAO- 01- 1069R. Washington, D. C.: August 31, 2001.
Responses of Federal Agencies and Airports We Surveyed about Access
Security Improvements. GAO- 01- 1068R. Washington, D. C.: August 31, 2001.
(RESTRICTED)
FAA Computer Security: Recommendations to Address Continuing Weaknesses.
GAO- 01- 171. Washington, D. C.: December 6, 2000.
Aviation Security: Additional Controls Needed to Address Weaknesses in
Carriage of Weapons Regulations. GAO/ RCED- 00- 181. Washington, D. C.:
September 29, 2000.
FAA Computer Security: Actions Needed to Address Critical Weaknesses That
Jeopardize Aviation Operations. GAO/ T- AIMD- 00- 330. Washington, D. C.:
September 27, 2000.
FAA Computer Security: Concerns Remain Due to Personnel and Other
Continuing Weaknesses. GAO/ AIMD- 00- 252. Washington, D. C.: August 16,
2000.
Aviation Security: Long- Standing Problems Impair Airport Screeners*
Performance. GAO/ RCED- 00- 75. Washington, D. C.: June 28, 2000.
Related GAO Products Page 44 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and
Challenges
Aviation Security: Screeners Continue to Have Serious Problems Detecting
Dangerous Objects. GAO/ RCED- 00- 159. Washington, D. C.: June 22, 2000.
(NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION) Computer Security: FAA Is Addressing
Personnel Weaknesses, but
Further Action Is Required. GAO/ AIMD- 00- 169. Washington, D. C.: May 31,
2000.
Security: Breaches at Federal Agencies and Airports. GAO- OSI- 00- 10.
Washington, D. C.: May 25, 2000.
Aviation Security: Screener Performance in Detecting Dangerous Objects
during FAA Testing Is Not Adequate. GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 143. Washington, D.
C.: April 6, 2000. (NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION)
Combating Terrorism: How Five Foreign Countries Are Organized to Combat
Terrorism. GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 85. Washington, D. C.: April 7, 2000.
Aviation Security: Vulnerabilities Still Exist in the Aviation Security
System. GAO/ T- RCED/ AIMD- 00- 142. Washington, D. C.: April 6, 2000.
U. S. Customs Service: Better Targeting of Airline Passengers for Personal
Searches Could Produce Better Results. GAO/ GGD- 00- 38. Washington, D.
C.: March 17, 2000.
Aviation Security: Screeners Not Adequately Detecting Threat Objects
during FAA Testing. GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 124. Washington, D. C.: March 16,
2000. (NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION)
Aviation Security: Slow Progress in Addressing Long- Standing Screener
Performance Problems. GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 125. Washington, D. C.: March 16,
2000.
Computer Security: FAA Needs to Improve Controls Over Use of Foreign
Nationals to Remediate and Review Software. GAO/ AIMD- 00- 55. Washington,
D. C.: December 23, 1999.
Aviation Security: FAA*s Actions to Study Responsibilities and Funding for
Airport Security and to Certify Screening Companies. GAO/ RCED99- 53.
Washington, D. C.: February 24, 1999.
Aviation Security: FAA*s Deployments of Equipment to Detect Traces of
Explosives. GAO/ RCED- 99- 32R. Washington, D. C.: November 13, 1998.
Related GAO Products Page 45 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and
Challenges
Air Traffic Control: Weak Computer Security Practices Jeopardize Flight
Safety. GAO/ AIMD- 98- 155. Washington, D. C.: May 18, 1998.
Aviation Security: Progress Being Made, but Long- Term Attention Is
Needed. GAO/ T- RCED- 98- 190. Washington, D. C.: May 14, 1998.
Air Traffic Control: Weak Computer Security Practices Jeopardize Flight
Safety. GAO/ AIMD- 98- 60. Washington, D. C.: April 29, 1998. (LIMITED
OFFICIAL USE *DO NOT DISSEMINATE)
Aviation Security: Implementation of Recommendations Is Under Way, but
Completion Will Take Several Years. GAO/ RCED- 98- 102. Washington, D. C.:
April 24, 1998.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on Crosscutting Issues. T- NSIAD- 98-
164. Washington, D. C.: April 23, 1998. Aviation Safety: Weaknesses in
Inspection and Enforcement Limit FAA in Identifying and Responding to
Risks. GAO/ RCED- 98- 6. Washington,
D. C.: February 27, 1998.
Aviation Security: FAA*s Procurement of Explosives Detection Devices.
GAO/ RCED- 97- 111R. Washington, D. C.: May 1, 1997.
Aviation Security: Commercially Available Advanced Explosives Detection
Devices. GAO/ RCED- 97- ll9R. Washington, D. C.: April 24, 1997.
Aviation Safety and Security: Challenges to Implementing the
Recommendations of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security. GAO/ T- RCED- 97- 90. Washington, D. C.: March 5, 1997.
Aviation Security: Technology*s Role in Addressing Vulnerabilities.
GAO/ T- RCED/ NSIAD- 96- 262. Washington, D. C.: September 19, 1996.
Aviation Security: Oversight of Initiatives Will Be Needed. C- GAO/ TRCED/
NSIAD- 96- 20. Washington, D. C.: September 17, 1996. (CLASSIFIED)
Aviation Security: Urgent Issues Need to Be Addressed. GAO/ TRCED/ NSIAD-
96- 251. Washington, D. C.: September 11, 1996.
Aviation Security: Immediate Action Needed to Improve Security. GAO/ T-
RCED/ NSIAD- 96- 237. Washington, D. C.: August 1, 1996.
Related GAO Products Page 46 GAO- 03- 1150T Aviation Security Progress and
Challenges
Aviation Security: FAA Can Help Ensure That Airports* Access Control
Systems Are Cost Effective. GAO/ RCED- 95- 25. Washington, D. C.: March 1,
1995.
Aviation Security: Development of New Security Technology Has Not Met
Expectations. GAO/ RCED- 94- 142. Washington, D. C.: May 19, 1994.
Aviation Security: Additional Actions Needed to Meet Domestic and
International Challenges. GAO/ RCED- 94- 38. Washington, D. C.: January
27, 1994.
Homeland Security: Information Sharing Responsibilities, Challenges, and
Key Management Issues. GAO- 03- 715T. Washington, D. C.: May 3, 2003.
Information Technology: Terrorist Watch Lists Should Be Consolidated to
Promote Better Integration and Sharing. GAO- 03- 322. Washington, D. C.:
April 15, 2003.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on National Strategies Related to
Terrorism. GAO- 03- 519T. Washington, D. C.: March 3, 2003.
Transportation Security Administration: Actions and Plans to Build a
Results- Oriented Culture. GAO- 03- 190. Washington, D. C.: January 17,
2003.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Homeland
Security. GAO- 03- 102. Washington, D. C.: January 1, 2003.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Transportation. GAO- 03- 108. Washington, D. C.: January 2003. National
Preparedness: Integration of Federal, State, Local, and Private
Sector Efforts Is Critical to an Effective National Strategy for Homeland
Security. GAO- 02- 621T. Washington, D. C.: April 11, 2002.
Homeland Security: Progress Made, More Direction and Partnership Sought.
GAO- 02- 490T. Washington, D. C.: March 12, 2002.
A Model of Human Capital Management. GAO- 02- 373SP. Washington, D. C.:
March 2002. Other
(540070)
This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail
this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products* heading.
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000
TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800
U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***