oversight

Transportation Security: Federal Action Needed to Help Address Security Challenges

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2003-06-30.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

             United States General Accounting Office

GAO          Report to Congressional Requesters




June 2003
             TRANSPORTATION
             SECURITY
             Federal Action
             Needed to Help
             Address Security
             Challenges




GAO-03-843
             a
                                                June 2003


                                                TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

                                                Federal Action Needed to Help Address
Highlights of GAO-03-843, a report to           Security Challenges
Congressional Requesters




The economic well being of the                  Securing the nation’s transportation system is fraught with challenges. The
U.S. is dependent on the                        transportation system crisscrosses the nation and extends beyond our
expeditious flow of people and                  borders to move millions of passengers and tons of freight each day. The
goods through the transportation                extensiveness of the system as well as the sheer volume of passengers and
system. The attacks on September                freight moved makes it both an attractive target and difficult to secure.
11, 2001, illustrate the threats and
                                                Addressing the security concerns of the transportation system is further
vulnerabilities of the transportation
system. Prior to September 11, the              complicated by the number of transportation stakeholders that are involved
Department of Transportation                    in security decisions, including government agencies at the federal, state,
(DOT) had primary responsibility                and local levels, and thousands of private sector companies. Further
for the security of the                         exacerbating these challenges are the financial pressures confronting
transportation system. In the wake              transportation stakeholders. For example, the sluggish economy has
of September 11, Congress created               weakened the transportation industry’s financial condition by decreasing
the Transportation Security                     ridership and revenues. The federal government has provided additional
Administration (TSA) within DOT                 funding for transportation security since September 11, but demand has far
and gave it primary responsibility              outstripped the additional amounts made available. It will take a collective
for the security of all modes of                effort of all transportation stakeholders to meet existing and future
transportation. TSA was recently                transportation challenges.
transferred to the new Department
of Homeland Security (DHS). GAO
was asked to examine the                        Since September 11, transportation stakeholders have acted to enhance
challenges in securing the                      security. At the federal level, TSA primarily focused on meeting aviation
transportation system and the                   security deadlines during its first year of existence and DOT launched a
federal role and actions in                     variety of security initiatives to enhance the other modes of transportation.
transportation security.                        For example, the Federal Transit Administration provided grants for
                                                emergency drills and conducted security assessments at the largest transit
                                                agencies, among other things. TSA has recently focused more on the
                                                security of the maritime and land transportation modes and is planning to
GAO recommends that DHS and
DOT use a mechanism, such as a                  issue security standards for all modes of transportation starting this summer.
memorandum of agreement, to                     DOT is also continuing their security efforts. However, the roles and
clarify and delineate DOT’s and                 responsibilities of TSA and DOT in securing the transportation system have
TSA’s roles and responsibilities in             not been clearly defined, which creates the potential for overlap, duplication,
transportation security matters.                and confusion as both entities move forward with their security efforts.
DHS and DOT generally agreed
with the report’s findings; however,
they disagreed with the
recommendation. Based on the
uncertainty in the entities’ roles
and responsibilities that
transportation stakeholders
surfaced to us, we continue to
believe our recommendation is
valid and would help address
transportation security challenges.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-843.

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Peter Guerrero
at (202) 512-2834 or guerrerop@gao.gov.
Contents



Letter                                                                                                   1
                             Results in Brief                                                            2
                             Background                                                                  5
                             The Transportation System as a Whole Faces Numerous
                               Challenges                                                                7
                             Transportation Operators and State and Local Governments Have
                               Taken Steps to Improve Security                                          25
                             Congress and Federal Agencies Have Taken Numerous Actions to
                               Enhance Security, but Roles Remain Unclear                               29
                             Experts and Associations Identified Future Actions to Advance the
                               Security of the Transportation System                                    49
                             Conclusions                                                                51
                             Recommendation for Executive Action                                        52
                             Agency Comments                                                            52


Appendixes
              Appendix I:    Scope and Methodology                                                      56
             Appendix II:    Comments from the Department of Transportation                             59
                             GAO Comments                                                               61
             Appendix III:   Comments from the Department of Homeland Security                          65
                             GAO Comments                                                               68
             Appendix IV:    Highlights of Current Laws and Regulations Governing
                             Transportation Security                                                    71
              Appendix V:    Organizational Chart of the Transportation Security
                             Administration                                                             80
             Appendix VI:    GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments                                     81
                             GAO Contact                                                                81
                             Acknowledgments                                                            81


Related GAO Products                                                                                    82
                             Transportation Security Reports and Testimonies                            82
                             Terrorism and Risk Management                                              84


Tables                       Table 1: Comparison of Transportation Security Grant Requests to
                                      Federal Funding Available, 2002 to 2003                           22




                             Page i                                      GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
          Contents




          Table 2: Key Actions Taken By DOT Modal Administrations to
                   Secure the Different Transportation Modes, September
                   2001 to May 2003                                                   32
          Table 3: Elements of a Risk Management Approach                             39
          Table 4: List of Interviewees                                               56
          Table 5: Authorizations                                                     71
          Table 6: Appropriations                                                     74
          Table 7: Regulations                                                        77


Figures   Figure 1: Illustration of the Extensiveness of the Different Modes
                    of Transportation                                                  8
          Figure 2: Illustration of Possible Freight Movements within the
                    Transportation System                                             15
          Figure 3: Intermodal Activity at a U.S. Port                                16
          Figure 4: Key Stakeholders in Transportation Security                       18
          Figure 5: Emergency Drill in Progress                                       27
          Figure 6: Photograph of Inspection Equipment in Use                         35
          Figure 7: Organizational Chart of TSA’s Office of Maritime and Land
                    Security, June 2003                                               38
          Figure 8: Illustration of How Risk Management Approach Can
                    Guide Decision-Making                                             40




          Page ii                                      GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Contents




Abbreviations

ATSA   Aviation and Transportation Security Act
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation
       Officials
CBP    Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
CSI    Container Security Initiative
C-TPAT Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
DHS    Department of Homeland Security
DOT    Department of Transportation
FAA    Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA   Federal Highway Administration
FTA    Federal Transit Administration
Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation
TSA    Transportation Security Administration
TWIC   Transportation Workers Identification Card

 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.




Page iii                                              GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
A
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548



                                    June 30, 2003                                                                             Lert




                                    Congressional Requesters

                                    The attacks of September 11, 2001, demonstrated the vulnerabilities of the
                                    nation’s transportation system to the terrorist threat. Terrorist events
                                    around the world have also shown that transportation systems are often
                                    targets of attack—roughly one-third of terrorist attacks worldwide target
                                    transportation systems.1 While most of the early attention following the
                                    September 11 attacks focused on airport security, emphasis on the other
                                    modes of transportation has since grown as concerns are voiced about
                                    possible vulnerabilities, such as introducing weapons of mass destruction
                                    into this country through ports or launching chemical attacks on mass
                                    transit systems. The entire transportation industry has remained on a
                                    heightened state of alert since the attacks. For example, as of May 2003, the
                                    Department of Transportation (DOT) had issued over 15 terrorist threat
                                    advisories to different segments of the transportation industry since
                                    September 11.

                                    As requested, this report examines (1) challenges in securing the nation’s
                                    transportation system; (2) actions transportation operators,2 as well as
                                    state and local governments, have taken since September 11 to enhance
                                    security; (3) the federal role in securing the transportation system and
                                    actions the federal government has taken to enhance transportation
                                    security since September 11; and (4) future actions that are needed to
                                    further enhance the security of the nation’s transportation system. To
                                    address these objectives, we analyzed the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
                                    recent threat assessment and the administration’s security strategies.3 We
                                    also analyzed the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and DOT
                                    security-related documents and reports as well as relevant statutes and
                                    regulations. In addition, we interviewed officials from DOT, the National
                                    Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), and TSA as well as


                                    1
                                     Congressional Research Service, Transportation Issues in the 107th Congress,
                                    (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2002).
                                    2
                                     Transportation operators may be private, public, or quasi-public entities that provide
                                    transportation services.
                                    3
                                     The White House, National Strategy for The Physical Protection of Critical
                                    Infrastructures and Key Assets, February 2003; Federal Bureau of Investigation, The
                                    Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland: An FBI Assessment, January 2003; and The White
                                    House, National Strategy for Homeland Security, July 2002.




                                    Page 1                                                  GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                   representatives from numerous transportation industry associations and
                   transportation security experts. We selected transportation industry and
                   state and local government associations that represent the different modes
                   of transportation and levels of government. We selected transportation
                   security experts based on their knowledge/expertise and reputation as
                   being an expert in the transportation security arena. We also consulted
                   with the National Academy of Sciences in identifying appropriate
                   transportation security experts. Finally, we reviewed our past reports on
                   homeland, port, transit, and aviation security and other research on
                   terrorism and transportation security. (See app. I for a more detailed
                   discussion of our report’s scope and methodology.)



Results in Brief   Transportation stakeholders face numerous challenges in securing the
                   nation’s transportation system. Some of these challenges are common to all
                   modes of transportation while other challenges are specific to aviation,
                   maritime, or land transportation modes. Common security challenges
                   include the extensiveness of the transportation system, the
                   interconnectivity of the system, funding limitations, and the number of
                   stakeholders involved in transportation security. For example, the
                   transportation system includes about 3.9 million miles of roads, over
                   100,000 miles of rail, almost 600,000 bridges, over 300 ports, 2.2 million
                   miles of pipelines, 500 train stations, and over 5,000 public-use airports.
                   The size of the system simultaneously provides a substantial number of
                   potential targets for terrorists and makes it difficult to secure. Additionally,
                   the number of stakeholders—including over 20 federal entities, state and
                   local governments, and hundreds of thousands of private businesses—can
                   lead to coordination, communication, and consensus-building challenges.
                   Further exacerbating these challenges are the financial pressures
                   confronting transportation stakeholders. For example, the sluggish
                   economy has weakened the transportation industry’s financial condition by
                   decreasing ridership and revenues. The federal government has provided
                   additional funding for transportation security since September 11, but
                   demand has far outstripped the additional amounts made available. The
                   aviation, maritime, and land transportation modes also face particular
                   challenges in enhancing security. For instance, maritime and land
                   transportation systems generally have open access designs so that users
                   can enter the systems at multiple points; however, this openness leaves
                   them vulnerable because transportation operators cannot monitor or
                   control who enters or leaves the systems.




                   Page 2                                          GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Despite these challenges, transportation operators and state and local
governments have implemented numerous actions to enhance security
since September 11. Although security was always a priority, the terrorist
attacks elevated the importance and urgency of security. According to
representatives from a number of industry associations we interviewed,
transportation operators have implemented new security measures or
increased the frequency or intensity of existing activities. For example,
many transportation operators conducted risk or security assessments,
undertook emergency drills, and developed security plans. State and local
governments, which play a critical role in securing the system because they
own a large portion of the transportation system as well as serve as first
responders to incidents involving transportation assets, have also acted to
improve the security of the transportation system. Some examples of their
actions since September 11 include deploying additional law enforcement
personnel and participating in emergency drills with the transportation
industry.

The roles of federal government agencies in securing the nation’s
transportation system are in transition. Prior to September 11, DOT had
primary responsibility for the security of the transportation system. In the
wake of September 11, Congress created TSA and gave it responsibility for
the security of all modes of transportation. During TSA’s first year of
existence, TSA’s primary focus was on aviation security. While TSA was
focusing on aviation security, DOT modal administrations4 launched
various initiatives to enhance the security of the maritime and land
transportation modes. For example, the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) launched a multipart security initiative to enhance transit security,
which included grants for emergency drills, security assessments, and
training. TSA has recently started to assert a greater role in securing the
maritime and land transportation modes and is launching a number of new
security initiatives. For example, TSA is planning to issue security
standards for all modes of transportation, starting this summer. However, a
number of representatives from transportation industry and state and local
government associations that we contacted expressed concerns about not
being adequately involved in TSA’s decision-making, such as the
development of security standards. DOT modal administrations are also
continuing their transportation security efforts. For example, the Federal


4
DOT’s modal administrations are the departmental units responsible for the different
modes of transportation, such as the Federal Railroad Administration or the Federal
Highway Administration.




Page 3                                                GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Highway Administration (FHWA) is coordinating a series of workshops this
year on emergency response and preparedness for state departments of
transportation and other agencies. The roles and responsibilities of TSA
and DOT in transportation security have yet to be clearly delineated, which
creates the potential for duplicating and/or conflicting efforts as both
entities move forward with their security efforts.

Transportation security experts and representatives from transportation
industry and state and local government associations that we spoke with
identified a number of actions that they said should be implemented to
enhance the security of the nation’s transportation system. In general, they
believe that the transportation system is generally more secure today than
it was prior to September 11; however, all noted that more work is needed
to improve the security of the system. Transportation security experts and
representatives from transportation industry and state and local
government associations identified a number of future actions needed; and
stated that the identified actions are primarily the responsibility of the
federal government. For instance, representatives from industry and state
and local government associations told us that clarifying federal roles and
coordinating federal efforts is important because their members are not
clear about which agency to contact for their various security concerns and
which agency has oversight for certain issues. Some representatives from
the transportation industry and state and local government associations
also noted that they have received conflicting messages from the different
federal entities.

We are recommending that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the
Secretary of Transportation develop mechanisms, such as a memorandum
of agreement, to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of TSA and
DOT in transportation security matters. We provided draft copies of this
report to Amtrak, DOT, and DHS for their review and comment. Amtrak
generally agreed with our findings and recommendation and provided
some technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. DOT
and DHS generally agreed with the report’s findings; however, they
disagreed with the conclusions and recommendation that their roles and
responsibilities in transportation security matters need to be clarified. We
continue to believe our recommendation would help address
transportation security challenges, based on our discussions with
transportation security stakeholders. For example, representatives from
several associations stated that their members were unclear as to which
agency to contact for their various security concerns and which agency has
oversight for certain issues. Furthermore, both entities are moving forward



Page 4                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
             with their security efforts, and both entities have statutory responsibilities
             for transportation security. Therefore, we continue to recommend that
             DOT and DHS clarify and delineate their roles and responsibilities in
             security matters and communicate this information to stakeholders. (See
             app. II and app. III for DOT and DHS comments and our responses.)



Background   The nation’s transportation system is a vast, interconnected network of
             diverse modes. Key modes of transportation include aviation; highways;
             motor carrier (i.e., trucking); motor coach (i.e., intercity bus); maritime;
             pipeline; rail (passenger and freight); and transit (e.g., buses, subways,
             ferry boats, and light rail). The transportation modes work in harmony to
             facilitate mobility through an extensive network of infrastructure and
             operators, as well as through the vehicles and vessels that permit
             passengers and freight to move within the system. For example, the
             nation’s transportation system moves over 30 million tons of freight and
             provides approximately 1.1 billion passenger trips each day. The diversity
             and size of the transportation system make it vital to our economy and
             national security, including military mobilization and deployment.

             Given the important role the transportation system plays in our economy,
             security, and every-day life, the transportation system is considered a
             critical infrastructure. The USA PATRIOT Act defines critical infrastructure
             as those “systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the
             United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets
             would have a debilitating impact on security, national economy security,
             national public health or safety, or combination of those matters.”5 In the
             National Strategy for Homeland Security, the administration identifies the
             transportation system as one of the 13 critical infrastructure sectors that
             must be protected. The administration’s National Strategy for the Physical
             Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets defines the
             administration’s plan for protecting our critical infrastructures and key
             assets, including the transportation system, from terrorist attacks. This
             strategy also outlines the guiding principles that will underpin the nation's
             efforts to secure the infrastructures vital to national security, governance,
             the economy and public confidence. The strategy is designed to serve as a
             foundation for building and fostering the necessary cooperation between



             5
             P.L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).




             Page 5                                         GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
government, private industry and citizens in protecting critical
infrastructures.

Private industry, state and local governments, and the federal government
all have roles and responsibilities in securing the transportation system.
Private industry owns and operates a large share of the transportation
system. For example, almost 2,000 pipeline companies and 571 railroad
companies own and operate the pipeline and freight railroad systems,
respectively. Additionally, 83 passenger air carriers and 640,000 interstate
motor coach and motor carrier companies operate in the United States.
State and local governments also own significant portions of the highways,
transit systems, and airports in the country. For example, state and local
governments own over 90 percent of the total mileage of highways. State
and local governments also administer and implement regulations for
different sectors of the transportation system and provide protective and
emergency response services through various agencies. Although the
federal government owns a limited share of the transportation system, it
issues regulations, establishes policies, provides funding, and/or sets
standards for the different modes of transportation. The federal
government uses a variety of policy tools, including grants, loan
guarantees, tax incentives, regulations, and partnerships, to motivate or
mandate state and local governments or the private sector to help address
security concerns.

Prior to September 11, DOT was the primary federal entity involved in
transportation security matters. However, in response to the attacks on
September 11, Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (ATSA), which created TSA within DOT and defined its primary
responsibility as ensuring security in all modes of transportation.6 The act
also gives TSA regulatory authority over all transportation modes. Since its
creation in November 2001, TSA has focused primarily on meeting the
aviation security deadlines contained in ATSA. With the passage of the
Homeland Security Act on November 25, 2002, TSA, along with over 20
other agencies, was transferred to the new Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).7




6
P.L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001).
7
P.L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002).




Page 6                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                              Throughout the world, all modes of transportation have been targets of
                              terrorist attacks. For example, aviation has long been an attractive target
                              for terrorists. Aircraft hijackings became a regular occurrence in the 1970s,
                              leading to the first efforts in aviation security. In 1988, a Pan Am flight was
                              bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board. In 1995, a plot to
                              bomb as many as 11 U.S. airliners was discovered. Most recently, U.S.
                              aircraft were hijacked on September 11, 2001, and crashed into the World
                              Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a
                              field in Pennsylvania, killing about 3,000 people and destroying billions of
                              dollars’ worth of property.

                              Public surface transportation systems have also been a common target for
                              terrorist attacks around the world. For example, the first large-scale
                              terrorist use of a chemical weapon occurred in 1995 on the Tokyo subway
                              system. In this attack, a terrorist group released sarin gas on a subway
                              train, killing 11 people and injuring 5,500. According to the Mineta
                              Transportation Institute,8 surface transportation systems were the target of
                              more than 195 terrorist attacks from 1997 through 2000.



The Transportation            The United States maintains the world’s largest and most complex national
                              transportation system. Improving the security of such a system is fraught
System as a Whole             with challenges for both public and private entities. To provide safe
Faces Numerous                transportation for the nation, these entities must overcome issues common
                              to all modes of transportation as well as issues specific to the individual
Challenges                    modes of transportation.



All Modes of Transportation   Although each mode of transportation is unique, they all face some
Face Common Challenges        common challenges in trying to enhance security. Common challenges
                              stem from the extensiveness of the transportation system, the
                              interconnectivity of the system, funding security improvements, and the
                              number of stakeholders involved in transportation security.




                              8
                               Congress, as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA),
                              established the Mineta Transportation Institute. The Institute focuses on international
                              surface transportation policy issues as related to three primary responsibilities: research,
                              education, and technology transfer.




                              Page 7                                                  GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Size and Diversity of                                              The size of the transportation system makes it difficult to adequately
Transportation Modes Create                                        secure. The transportation system’s extensive infrastructure crisscrosses
Security Challenges                                                the nation and extends beyond our borders to move millions of passengers
                                                                   and tons of freight each day. (See fig. 1 for maps of the different
                                                                   transportation modes.) The extensiveness of the infrastructure as well as
                                                                   the sheer volume of freight and passengers moved through the system
                                                                   creates an infinite number of targets for terrorists. Furthermore, as
                                                                   industry representatives and transportation security experts repeatedly
                                                                   noted, the extensiveness of the infrastructure makes it impossible to
                                                                   equally protect all assets.



Figure 1: Illustration of the Extensiveness of the Different Modes of Transportation


     Airports




Source: GAO presentation of Bureau of Transportation statistics, TSA, and FTA data.


                                                                   Note: This map shows the location of all airports with Federal Security Directors except for the nine
                                                                   airports in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the American Samoa, and the Mariana Islands. Federal




                                                                   Page 8                                                         GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                                                                   Security Directors are TSA employees who oversee federal security operations at the nation’s airports.
                                                                   A total of 433 airports are shown in this map.




Illustration of the Extensiveness of the Different Modes of Transportation (Continued)

     Ports




Source: GAO presentation of Bureau of Transportation statistics, TSA, and FTA data.


                                                                   Note: This map shows the location of all U.S. ports for eight ports located in Puerto Rico and the Virgin
                                                                   Islands. A total of 353 ports are shown.




                                                                   Page 9                                                         GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Illustration of the Extensiveness of the Different Modes of Transportation (Continued)


     Highways




Source: GAO presentation of Bureau of Transportation statistics, TSA, and FTA data.


                                                                   Note: This map shows the National Highway Planning Network. It does not show all urban and rural
                                                                   roads in the United States.




                                                                   Page 10                                                    GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Illustration of the Extensiveness of the Different Modes of Transportation (Continued)

     Rail




Source: GAO presentation of Bureau of Transportation statistics, TSA, and FTA data.


                                                                   Note: This map shows the rail lines of Class I railroads, which are the largest railroads, as defined by
                                                                   operating revenue. Class I railroads represent the majority of rail freight activity.




                                                                   Page 11                                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Illustration of the Extensiveness of the Different Modes of Transportation (Continued)


     Transit




Source: GAO presentation of Bureau of Transportation statistics, TSA, and FTA data.


                                                                   Note: This map shows the location of all mass transit agencies that were eligible to receive federal
                                                                   urbanized area formula funding in 2001, except for 13 transit agencies located in Puerto Rico. A total of
                                                                   589 transit agencies are shown.




                                                                   Page 12                                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Illustration of the Extensiveness of the Different Modes of Transportation (Continued)

     Pipelines




Source: GAO presentation of Bureau of Transportation statistics, TSA, and FTA data.


                                                                   Note: This map shows the location of pipelines that are at least 12 inches in diameter, which accounts
                                                                   for the majority of all pipeline capacity.


                                                                   Protecting transportation assets from attack is made more difficult because
                                                                   of the tremendous variety of transportation operators. Some are
                                                                   multibillion-dollar enterprises, while others have very limited facilities and
                                                                   very little traffic. Some are public agencies, such as state departments of
                                                                   transportation, while some are private businesses. The type of freight
                                                                   moved through the different modes is similarly varied. For example, the
                                                                   maritime, motor carrier, and rail operators haul freight as diverse as dry
                                                                   bulk (grain) and hazardous materials. Additionally, some transportation
                                                                   operators carry passengers while others haul freight.




                                                                   Page 13                                                       GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Interconnectivity and          Additional challenges are created by the interconnectivity and
Interdependency Also Present   interdependency among the transportation modes and between the
Challenges                     transportation sector and nearly every other sector of the economy. The
                               transportation system is interconnected or intermodal because passengers
                               and freight can use multiple modes of transportation to reach a destination.
                               For example, from its point of origin to its destination, a piece of freight,
                               such as a shipping container, can move from ship to train to truck. (See fig.
                               2.) The interconnective nature of the transportation system creates several
                               security challenges. First, events directed at one mode of transportation
                               can have ripple effects throughout the entire system. For example, when
                               the port workers in California, Oregon, and Washington went on strike in
                               2002, the railroads saw their intermodal traffic decline by almost 30 percent
                               during the first week of the strike, compared with the year before. Second,
                               the interconnecting modes can contaminate each other—that is, if a
                               particular mode experiences a security breach, the breach could affect
                               other modes.9 An example of this would be if a shipping container that held
                               a weapon of mass destruction arrived at a U.S. port where it was placed on
                               a truck or train. In this case, although the original security breach occurred
                               in the port, the rail or trucking industry would be affected as well. Thus,
                               even if operators within one mode established high levels of security they
                               could be affected because of the security efforts, or lack thereof, of the
                               other modes. Third, intermodal facilities where a number of modes connect
                               and interact—such as ports—are potential targets for attack because of the
                               presence of passenger, freight, employees, and equipment at these
                               facilities. (See fig. 3.)




                               9
                                Similarly, there are opportunities for cross contamination within the same mode. For
                               example, a bag containing an explosive device could be placed on one airline and then
                               transferred to another airline where it explodes.




                               Page 14                                               GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Figure 2: Illustration of Possible Freight Movements within the Transportation
System

                                        1.
                     7.                 Overseas
                                        factory
                     Destination

                                                                  2.
                    STOP                                          Maritime




     6.
     Truck                                                                   3.
                                                                             U.S. port




                                                                4.
               5.                                                Rail
               Distribution
               center




Source: GAO.




Page 15                                            GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                             Figure 3: Intermodal Activity at a U.S. Port




                             Interdependencies also exist between transportation and nearly every
                             other sector of the economy. Consequently, an event that affects the
                             transportation sector can have serious impacts on other industries. For
                             example, when the war in Afghanistan began in October 2001, the rail
                             industry stated that it restricted the movement of many hazardous
                             materials, including chlorine, because of a heightened threat of a terrorist
                             attack. However, within days, many major water treatment facilities
                             reported that they were running out of chlorine, which they use to treat
                             drinking water, and would have to shut down operations if chlorine
                             deliveries were not immediately resumed. Additionally, the transportation
                             system can be affected by other sectors. For example, representatives of
                             the motor coach industry told us that the drop in the tourism industry has
                             negatively affected motor coach profits.

The Number of Stakeholders   Securing the transportation system is made more difficult because of the
Creates Challenges           number of stakeholders involved. As illustrated in figure 4, numerous
                             entities at the federal, state, and local levels, including over 20 federal
                             entities and thousands of private sector businesses, play a key role in
                             transportation security. For example, the Departments of Energy,



                             Page 16                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Transportation, and Homeland Security, state governments, and about
2,000 pipeline operators are all responsible for securing the pipeline
system. The number of stakeholders involved in transportation security
can lead to communication challenges, duplication, and conflicting
guidance. Representatives from several state and local government and
industry associations told us that their members are receiving different
messages from the various federal agencies involved in transportation
security. For instance, one industry representative noted that both TSA and
DOT asked the industry to implement additional security measures when
the nation’s threat condition was elevated to orange at the beginning of the
Iraq War;10 however, TSA and DOT were not consistent in what they wanted
done—that is, they were asking for different security measures. Moreover,
many representatives commented that the federal government needs to
better coordinate its security efforts. These representatives noted that
dealing with multiple agencies on the same issues and topics is frustrating
and time consuming for the transportation sector.




10
 DHS created the Homeland Security Advisory System. The system has five threat
conditions—ranging from low to severe—representing different levels of risk for terrorist
attacks.




Page 17                                                GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Figure 4: Key Stakeholders in Transportation Security

                                        Bureau o
       Coast
                                    Citizensh f                                                                  Federal
       Guard                                 ip and                                                                                                  Federal
                                     Immigra                                                                    Highwa
                                              tion                           Local                            Adminis y                             Railroad                        Pipe
                                                                                                                                                                                         li
                                       Services                                   ents                               tration                      Administr                        oper ne
                                                                          governm                                                                          ation                       ators




      Federal Avi
                  ation                   Ope
       Admnistra                              rato                                        l                                                      Sain
                 tion                                                                 ica                                                            t Law
                                             por rs of                             em                                                               Sea rence
                                                ts                               Ch ppers                            DOE
                                                                                                                                                                                   State
                                                                                  shi                                                            Deve way                      governm
                                                                                                                                                                                       ents
                                                                                                                                                      lo
                                                                                                                                                 Corp pment
                                                                                                                                                     oratio
                                                                                                                                                            n

                                        int Fed
                                           e e                          Infor
                                       ag llig ral                            ma                                                of
                                          en en                          and In tion Analy                           Bureau nd                                                                way
                                            cie ce                             fras        sis                                 sa                                  y                  al High
                                               s                            Prote tructure                          C u s to m                        Industr                  Nation Safety
                                                                                  ction                                  Border                                  ti ons
        Railroads                                                                                                                                    as s o c ia                 Traffic          n
                                                                                                                       Protec
                                                                                                                                tion                                                     istratio
                                                                                                                                                                                 Admin



                                          Mar
                                              in
               itime                     vess e                                                           Military Traffic
          Mar tration
             inis                      ope el                              Amtrak                         Management                                                               Federal
         Adm                              rato                                                                                                                     ncy
                                               rs                                                          Command                                            erge                Bureau of
                                                                                                                                                    e ra l Em ent
                                                                                                                                                               m                Investigation
                                                                                                                                                 Fed anage y
                                                                                                                                                    M          nc
                                                                                                                                                           Age

                                                                                       Tran                                      Ope
                                                               it                           spor                                     rato
                       l Motor                         Trans rs                          Sec tation                               airpo rs of
                Federa afety                              e rato                      Adm urity                                         r ts                                      Federal
                       r S                            o p                                 inist
                Carrie                                                                          ratio                                                                              Transit
                          tration                                                                     n
                 Adminis                                                                                                                                                        Administratio
                                                                                                                                                                                              n



                                                                                                                                Offic
                 tion                                                                                                                 e                                 iers
             rma                             and                Offic                                                          Secr of the                       carr
         Info ng and                  arch                            e
                                                               Sec of the                             ation                         e
                                                                                                                             Trans tary of                 Air
              ri                Rese rograms                       ret                            spor
                                                                                                       t
                                                                                                                                   por ta
          Sha alysis                ial P                      Hom ary of                     Tran rkers                                                                       Labor
             An ers            Spec      istrati
                                                 on                  elan                         wo                                      tion
                                                                                                                                                                                       union
              Cen
                   t             Admin                         Sec
                                                                    urity
                                                                          d                                                                                                                 s




                                                                              Federal

                                                                              State and local

                                                                               Private

                                                                               Othera

Source: GAO.

                                                                    a
                                                                    “Other” includes private, public, or quasi-public entities.




                                                                    Page 18                                                                              GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                             The number of stakeholders also makes it difficult to achieve the needed
                             cooperation and consensus to move forward with security efforts. As we
                             have noted in past reports, coordination and consensus-building is critical
                             to successful implementation of security efforts.11 Transportation
                             stakeholders can have inconsistent goals or interests, which can make
                             consensus-building challenging. For example, from a safety perspective,
                             vehicles that carry hazardous materials should be required to have placards
                             that identify the contents of a vehicle so that emergency personnel know
                             how best to respond to an incident. However, from a security perspective,
                             identifying placards on vehicles that carry hazardous materials make them
                             a potential target for attack.

Funding Is A Key Challenge   According to transportation security experts and state and local
                             government and industry representatives we contacted, funding is the most
                             pressing challenge to securing the nation’s transportation system. While
                             some security improvements are inexpensive, such as removing trash cans
                             from subway platforms, most require substantial funding. Additionally,
                             given the large number of assets to protect, the sum of even relatively less
                             expensive investments can be cost prohibitive. For example, reinforcing
                             shipping containers to make them more blast resistant is one way to
                             improve security, which would cost about $15,000 per container. With
                             several million shipping containers in use, however, this tactic would cost
                             billions of dollars if all of them were reinforced. The total cost of enhancing
                             the security of the entire transportation system is unknown; however, given
                             the size of the system, it could amount to tens of billions of dollars. The
                             magnitude of the potential cost is illustrated by several examples:

                             • The President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for TSA includes about
                               $4.5 billion for aviation security. According to TSA, this funding will be
                               used for security screeners, air marshals, aviation related research and
                               development, and surveillance detection techniques, among other
                               things.

                             • The total estimated cost of the identified security improvements at eight
                               mass transit agencies we visited was about $711 million.12



                             11
                                  See “Related GAO Products.”
                             12
                              U.S. General Accounting Office, Mass Transit: Federal Action Could Help Transit
                             Agencies Address Security Challenges, GAO-03-263 (Washington, D.C.: December 13, 2002).




                             Page 19                                             GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
• The Coast Guard estimates the cost of implementing the new
  International Maritime Organization security code13 and the security
  provisions in the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 200214 to be
  approximately $1.5 billion for the first year and $7.4 billion over the
  succeeding decade.

• The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
  Officials (AASHTO)15 estimates that enhancing highway and transit
  security will cost $2 billion annually in capital costs and $1 billion in
  operating costs.

The current economic environment makes this a difficult time for the
private industry or state and local governments to make security
investments. According to industry representatives and experts we
contacted, most of the transportation industry operates on a very thin
profit margin, making it difficult to pay for additional security measures.
The sluggish economy has further weakened the transportation industry’s
financial condition by decreasing ridership and revenues. For example,
airlines are in the worst fiscal crisis in their history and several have filed
for bankruptcy. Similarly, the motor coach and motor carrier industries and
Amtrak report decreased revenues because of the slow economy. In
addition, nearly every state and local government are facing a large budget
deficit for fiscal year 2004. For example, the National Governors
Association estimates that states are facing a total budget shortfall of $80
billion this upcoming year. Given the tight budget environment, state and
local governments and transportation operators must make difficult trade-
offs between transportation security investments and other needs, such as
service expansion and equipment upgrades. According to the National
Association of Counties, many local governments are planning to defer
some maintenance of their transportation infrastructure to pay for some
security enhancements.




13
 The International Maritime Organization, an United Nations agency devoted exclusively to
maritime matters, adopted international measures for port and shipping security in
December 2002.
14
     P.L. No. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064 (2002).
15
 AASHTO is a nonprofit, nonpartisan association representing highway and transportation
departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.




Page 20                                               GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Further exacerbating the problem of funding security improvements is the
additional costs the transportation sector incurs when the federal
government elevates the national threat condition. Industry representatives
stated that operators tighten security, such as increasing security patrols,
when the national threat condition is raised or intelligence information
suggests an increased threat against their mode. However, these
representatives stated that these additional measures drain resources and
are not sustainable. For example, Amtrak estimates that it spends an
additional $500,000 per month for police overtime when the national threat
condition is increased. Transportation industry representatives also noted
that employees are diverted from their regular duties to implement
additional security measures, such as guarding entranceways, in times of
increased security, which hurts productivity.

The federal government has provided additional funding for transportation
security since September 11, but demand has far outstripped the additional
amounts made available. For example, Congress appropriated a total of
$241 million for grants for ports, motor carriers, and Operation Safe
Commerce in 2002.16 However, as table 1 shows, the grant applications
received by TSA for these security grants totaled $1.8 billion—7 times more
than the amount available. Due to the costs of security enhancements and
the transportation industries’ and state and local governments’ tight budget
environments, the federal government is likely to be viewed as a source of
funding for at least some of these enhancements. However, given the
constraints on the federal budget as well as competing claims for federal
assistance, requests for federal funding for transportation security
enhancements will likely continue to exceed available resources.




16
   Operation Safe Commerce focuses on using new technology, such as container seals, to
help shippers ensure the integrity of the cargo included in containers being sent to the
United States.




Page 21                                                GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                               Table 1: Comparison of Transportation Security Grant Requests to Federal Funding
                               Available, 2002 to 2003

                               Dollars in millions
                                                                                                    Total amount requested
                               Type of grant                        Amount appropriated             in all grant applications
                               Port security grantsa                                  $93.3                               $697
                                                     b
                               Port security grants                                     105                                996
                               Intercity bus grantsb                                     15                                45.6
                               Operation Safe Commerce                                   28                                97.9
                               grantsb
                               Total                                                 $241.3                           $1,836.5
                               Source: TSA.

                               Note: Both the Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. No.
                               107-117) and the Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. No. 107-206) provided funding for port
                               security grants.
                               a
                               P.L. No. 107-117, 115 Stat. 2230 (2002).
                               b
                               P.L. No. 107-206, 116 Stat. 820 (2002).


Balancing Potential Economic   Another challenge is balancing the potential economic impacts of security
Impacts and Security           enhancements with the benefits of such measures. While there is broad
Enhancements Is Also           support for greater security, this task is a difficult one because the nation
Challenging                    relies heavily on a free and expeditious flow of goods. Particularly with
                               “just in time” deliveries, which require a smooth and expeditious flow
                               through the transportation system, delays or disruptions in the supply
                               chain could have serious economic impacts. As the Coast Guard
                               Commandant stated about the flow of goods through ports, “even slowing
                               the flow long enough to inspect either all or a statistically significant
                               random selection of imports would be economically intolerable.”17

                               Furthermore, security measures may have economic and competitive
                               ramifications for individual modes of transportation. For instance, if the
                               federal government imposed a particular security requirement on the rail
                               industry and not on the motor carrier industry, the rail industry might incur
                               additional costs and/or lose customers to the motor carrier industry.
                               Striking the right balance between increasing security and protecting


                               17
                                Meeting the Homeland Security Challenge: A Principled Strategy for a Balanced and
                               Practical Response (September 2001); and Global Trade: America’s Achilles’ Heel
                               (February 2002) by Admiral James M. Loy and Captain Robert G. Ross, U.S. Coast Guard.




                               Page 22                                                   GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                            economic vitality of the national economy and individual modes will
                            remain an important and difficult task.



Individual Transportation   In addition to the overarching challenges that transportation stakeholders
Modes Also Confront         will face in attempting to improve transportation security, they also face a
                            number of challenges specific to the aviation, maritime, and land
Unique Challenges           transportation modes. Although aviation security has received a significant
                            amount of attention and funding since September 11, more work is needed.
                            In general, transportation security experts believe that the aviation system
                            is more secure today than it was prior to September 11. However, aviation
                            experts and TSA officials noted significant vulnerabilities remain,
                            including: 18

                            • Perimeter security: Terrorists could launch attacks, such as launching
                              shoulder-fired missiles, from a location just outside an airport’s
                              perimeter. Since September 11, airport operators have increased their
                              patrols of airport perimeter areas, but industry officials state that they
                              do not have enough resources to completely protect against these
                              attacks.

                            • Air cargo security: 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 exist in securing
                              the cargo carried aboard commercial passenger and all-cargo aircraft.
                              For example, employees of shippers and freight forwarders are not
                              universally subject to a background check. Theft is also a major problem
                              in air cargo shipping, signifying that unauthorized personnel may still be
                              gaining access to air cargo shipments. Air cargo shipments pass through
                              several hands in going from sender to recipient, making it challenging to
                              implement a system that provides adequate security for air cargo.
                              According to TSA officials, TSA is developing a strategic plan to address
                              air cargo security and has undertaken a comprehensive outreach
                              process to strengthen security programs across the industry.




                            18
                             See “Related GAO Products” at the end of this report for information on GAO reports that
                            examine aviation security issues.




                            Page 23                                               GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
• General aviation security: While TSA has taken several actions
  related to general aviation19 since September 11, this segment of the
  industry remains potentially more vulnerable than commercial aviation.
  For example, general aviation pilots are not screened prior to taking off
  and the contents of a plane are not examined at any point. According to
  TSA, solutions that can be implemented relatively easily at the nation’s
  commercial airports are not practical at the 19,000 general aviation
  airports. It would be very difficult to prevent a general aviation pilot
  who is intent on committing a terrorist attack with his or her aircraft
  from doing so. The vulnerability of the system was illustrated in January
  2002, when a Florida teenage flight student crashed his single-engine
  airplane into a Tampa skyscraper.20 TSA is working with the appropriate
  stakeholders to close potential security gaps and to raise the security
  standards across this diverse segment of the aviation industry.

Maritime and land transportation systems have their own unique security
vulnerabilities. For example, maritime and land transportation systems
generally have an open design, meaning the users can access the system at
multiple points. The systems are open by design so that they are accessible
and convenient for users. In contrast, the aviation system is housed in
closed and controlled locations with few entry points. The openness of the
maritime and land transportation systems can leave them vulnerable
because transportation operators cannot monitor or control who enters or
leaves the systems. However, adding security measures that restrict the
flow of passengers or freight through the systems could have serious
consequences for commerce and the public.

Individual maritime and land transportation modes also have unique
challenges and vulnerabilities. For example, representatives from the
motor carrier industry noted that the high turnover rate (about 40 to 60
percent) of drivers means that motor carrier operators must be continually
conducting background checks on new drivers, which is expensive and
time consuming. Additionally, representatives from the motor coach
industry commented that the number of used motor coaches on the market
coupled with the lack of guidance or requirements on buying or selling
these vehicles is a serious vulnerability. In particular, there are


19
 General aviation includes more than 200,000 corporate- and privately- owned aircraft at
over 19,000 airports.
20
     It should be noted that this event was not a terrorist attack.




Page 24                                                      GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                            approximately 5,000 used motor coaches on the market; however, there is
                            very little information on who is selling and buying them, nor is there any
                            consistency among motor coach operators in whether they remove their
                            logos from the vehicles before they are sold. These vehicles could be used
                            as a weapon or to transport a weapon. Federal Motor Carrier Safety
                            Administration officials told us they have not issued guidance to the
                            industry on this potential vulnerability because TSA is responsible for
                            security and therefore would be responsible for issuing such guidance.



Transportation              Since September 11, transportation operators and state and local
                            governments have been working to strengthen security, according to
Operators and State         associations we contacted. Although security was a priority before
and Local                   September 11, the terrorist attacks elevated the importance and urgency of
                            transportation security for transportation operators and state and local
Governments Have            governments. The industry has been consistently operating at a heightened
Taken Steps to              state of security since September 11. State and local governments have also
Improve Security            made transportation security investments since September 11.



Transportation Operators    According to representatives from a number of industry associations we
Have Undertaken a Variety   interviewed,21 transportation operators have implemented new security
                            measures or increased the frequency or intensity of existing activities.
of Security-Enhancing
                            Some of the most common measures cited include:
Actions
                            • Conducted vulnerability or risk assessments: Many transportation
                              operators conducted assessments of their systems to identify potential
                              vulnerabilities, critical infrastructure or assets, and corrective actions or
                              needed security improvements. For example, the railroad industry
                              conducted a risk assessment, that identified over 1,300 critical assets
                              and served as a foundation for the industry’s security plan.

                            • Tightened access control: Many transportation operators have
                              tightened access control to their facilities and equipment by installing
                              fences and requiring employees to display identification cards, among



                            21
                             Some of the industry associations we contacted include the American Bus Association,
                            American Gas Association, American Trucking Associations, and Association of American
                            Railroads. See appendix I for a complete list of industry associations we contacted.




                            Page 25                                             GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
   other things. For example, some motor carrier operators have installed
   fences around truck yards and locked inventory at night.

• Intensified security presence: Some transportation operators have
  increased the number of police or security who patrol their systems. For
  example, transit agencies have placed surveillance equipment, alarms,
  or security personnel at access points to subway tunnels, bus yards, and
  other nonpublic places and required employees to wear brightly colored
  vests for increased visibility.

• Increased emergency drills: Many transportation operators have
  increased the frequency of emergency drills. For example, Amtrak
  reported that it has conducted two full-scale emergency drills in New
  York City and is currently trying to arrange a drill at Union Station in
  Washington, D.C. The purpose of emergency drilling is to test
  emergency plans, identify problems, and develop corrective actions.
  Figure 5 is a photograph from an annual emergency drill conducted by
  the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.




Page 26                                      GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Figure 5: Emergency Drill in Progress




• Developed or revised security plans: Transportation operators
  developed security plans or reviewed existing plans to determine, what
  changes, if any, needed to be made. For example, DOT’s Office of
  Pipeline Safety worked with the industry to develop performance
  oriented security guidance. The Office of Pipeline Safety also
  encouraged all pipeline operators to develop security plans and directed
  operators with critical facilities to develop security plans for these
  facilities.




Page 27                                      GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                             • Provided additional training: Many transportation operators have
                               either participated in and/or conducted additional training on security
                               or antiterrorism. For example, the United Motorcoach Association is
                               developing an online security training program for motor coach
                               operators, using funds from the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program.
                               Similarly, many transit agencies attended seminars conducted by FTA or
                               by the American Public Transportation Association.

                             Some transportation industries have also implemented more innovative
                             security measures, according to associations we contacted. For example,
                             the natural gas industry modeled the impact of pipeline outages on the
                             natural gas supply in the Northeast, which helped to identify vulnerabilities
                             and needed improvements. The motor carrier industry developed a
                             program called the Highway Watch Program, supported by the American
                             Trucking Associations.22 The program is a driver-led, state-organized safety
                             system that since September 11 has included a security component.
                             Specifically, drivers are provided terrorism awareness training and are
                             encouraged to report suspicious activities they witness on the road to a
                             Highway Watch Program call center, which is operated 24 hours a day, 7
                             days a week. The call center then directs the call to appropriate authorities.



State and Local              As we have previously reported, state and local governments are critical
Governments Have Also        stakeholders in the nation’s homeland security efforts.23 This is equally true
                             in securing the nation’s transportation system. State and local governments
Increased Security-Related
                             play a critical role, in part, because they own a significant portion of the
Efforts                      transportation infrastructure, such as airports, transit systems, highways,
                             and ports. For example, state and local governments own over 90 percent
                             of the total mileage of the highway system. Even when state and local
                             governments are not the owners or operators, they nonetheless are directly
                             affected by the transportation modes that run through their jurisdictions.
                             Consequently, the responsibility for protecting this infrastructure and
                             responding to emergencies involving the transportation infrastructure
                             often falls to state and local governments.




                             22
                              The Highway Watch Program is funded by a $500,000 grant from the Federal Motor Carrier
                             Safety Administration.
                             23
                                  See “Related GAO Products” at the end of this report.




                             Page 28                                                      GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                         Security efforts of local and state governments have included developing
                         counter terrorist plans, participating in training and security-related
                         research, participating in transportation operators’ emergency drills and
                         table-top exercises, conducting vulnerability assessments of transportation
                         assets, and participating in emergency planning sessions with
                         transportation operators. Some state and local governments have also
                         hired additional law enforcement personnel to patrol transportation assets.
                         Much of the funding for these efforts has been covered by the state and
                         local governments, with a bulk of the expenses going to personnel costs,
                         such as additional law enforcement officers and overtime.



Congress and Federal     The Congress, DOT, TSA, and other federal agencies, took numerous steps
                         to enhance transportation security since September 11. The roles of the
Agencies Have Taken      federal agencies in securing the nation’s transportation system, however,
Numerous Actions to      are in transition. Prior to September 11, DOT had primary responsibility for
                         the security of the transportation system. In the wake of September 11,
Enhance Security, but    Congress created TSA and gave it responsibility for the security of all
Roles Remain Unclear     modes of transportation. However, DOT and TSA have not yet formally
                         defined their roles and responsibilities in securing all modes of
                         transportation. Furthermore, TSA is moving forward with plans to enhance
                         transportation security. For example, TSA plans to issue security standards
                         for all modes. DOT modal administrations are also continuing their security
                         efforts for different modes of transportation.



Congress and Federal     Congress has acted to enhance the security of the nation’s transportation
Agencies Have Acted to   system since September 11. In addition to passing the Aviation and
                         Transportation Security Act (ATSA),24 Congress passed numerous pieces of
Enhance Transportation
                         legislation aimed at improving transportation security. For example,
Security                 Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001,25 which mandates federal
                         background checks of individuals operating vehicles carrying hazardous
                         materials and the Homeland Security Act,26 which created DHS and moved
                         TSA to the new department.27 Congress also provided funding for
                         transportation security enhancements through various appropriations acts.


                         24
                              P.L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001).
                         25
                              P.L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).
                         26
                              P.L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002).




                         Page 29                                         GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
For example, the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act, in part, provided
(1) $738 million for the installation of explosives detection systems in
commercial service airports, (2) $125 million for port security activities,
and (3) $15 million to enhance the security of intercity bus operations. (See
app. IV for a listing of the key pieces of transportation security-related
legislation that has been passed since September 11.)

Federal agencies, notably TSA and DOT, have also taken steps to enhance
transportation security since September 11. In its first year of existence,
TSA worked to establish its organization and focused primarily on meeting
the aviation security deadlines contained in ATSA. In January 2002, TSA
had 13 employees to tackle securing the nation’s transportation system—1
year later, TSA had about 65,000 employees. TSA reports that it met over 30
deadlines during 2002 to improve aviation security, including two of its
most significant deadlines—to deploy federal passenger screeners at
airports across the nation by November 19, 2002, and to screen every piece
of checked baggage for explosives by December 31, 2002.28 According to
TSA, other completed TSA activities included the following:

• recruiting, hiring, training, and deploying about 56,000 federal screeners.

• awarding grants for port security; and

• implementing performance management system and strategic planning
  activities to create a results-oriented culture.

As TSA worked to establish itself and improve the security of the aviation
system, DOT modal administrations acted to enhance security of air, land,


27
 The U.S. Coast Guard was also transferred to DHS. In the Terms of Reference Regarding
the Respective roles of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Transportation Security
Administration, the Coast Guard is designated as the lead DHS agency for maritime
security and is directed to coordinate as appropriate with other agencies. The document
further notes that a supporting memorandum of agreement between the Commandant of the
Coast Guard and the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration is being
developed.
28
 The Homeland Security Act, P.L. 107-296 (November 25, 2002) the legislation that created
DHS, amended this deadline to allow some airports up to an extra year (December 31, 2003)
to deploy all of the necessary explosive detection equipment to enable TSA to screen all
checked baggage. TSA reported that as of December 31, 2002, about 90 percent of all
checked baggage were screened with an explosive detection system or explosives trace
detection equipment and the remaining checked baggage was screened using alternative
means as is allowed under the law.




Page 30                                               GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
and maritime transportation. As table 2 shows, the actions taken by DOT
modal administrations varied. For example, FTA launched a multipart
initiative for mass transit agencies, which provided grants for emergency
drills, offered free security training, conducted security assessments at 36
transit agencies, provided technical assistance, and invested in research
and development. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
developed three courses for motor coach drivers. The response of various
DOT modal agencies to the threat of terrorist attacks on the transportation
system has varied due to differences in authority and resource limitations.




Page 31                                       GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Table 2: Key Actions Taken By DOT Modal Administrations to Secure the Different Transportation Modes, September 2001 to
May 2003

Mode                DOT modal administration        Examples of actions taken
All (transport of   Research and Special           • Established regulations for shippers and transporters of certain hazardous materials
hazardous           Programs Administration          to develop and implement security plans and to require security awareness training
materials)          (Office of Hazardous Materials   for hazmat employees.
                    Safety)                        • Developed hazardous materials transportation security awareness training for law
                                                     enforcement, the industry, and the hazmat community.
                                                   • Published security advisory, which identifies measures that could enhance the
                                                     security of the transport of hazardous materials.
                                                   • Investigated the security risks associated with placarding hazardous materials,
                                                     including whether removing placards from certain shipments improve shipment
                                                     security, and whether alternative methods for communicating safety hazards could
                                                     be deployed.
Aviation            Federal Aviation                • Established rule for strengthening cockpit doors on commercial aircraft.
                    Administration                  • Issued guidance to flight school operators for additional security measures.
                                                    • Assisted Department of Justice in increasing background check requirements for
                                                      foreign nationals seeking pilot certificates.
                                                    • Increased access restrictions at air traffic control facilities.
                                                    • Developed computer security strategy.
Highways            Federal Highway                 • Provided vulnerability assessment and emergency preparedness workshops.
                    Administration                  • Developed and prioritized list of highway security research and development
                                                      projects.
                                                    • Convened blue ribbon panel on bridge and tunnel vulnerabilities.
Maritime            U.S. Coast Guarda               • Activated and deployed port security units to help support local port security patrols
                                                      in high threat areas.
                                                    • Boarded and inspected ships to search for threats and confirmed the identity of
                                                      those aboard.
                                                    • Conducted initial assessments of the nation’s ports to identify vessel types and
                                                      facilities that pose a high risk of being involved in a transportation security incident.
                                                    • Established a new centralized National Vessel Movement Center to track the
                                                      movement of all foreign-flagged vessels entering U.S. ports of call.
                                                    • Established new guidelines for developing security plans and implementing security
                                                      measures for passenger vessels and passenger terminals.
                                                    • Used the pollution and hazardous materials expertise of the Coast Guards’ National
                                                      Strike Force to prepare for and respond to bioterrorism and weapons of mass
                                                      destruction.


                    Maritime Administration         • Increased port security and terrorism emphasis at National Port Readiness Network
                                                      Port Readiness Exercises.
                                                    • Provided port security training and developed standards and curriculum to educate
                                                      and train maritime security personnel.
                                                    • Increased access restrictions and established new security procedures for the
                                                      Ready Reserve Force.
                                                    • Provided merchant mariner background checks for Ready Reserve Force and sealift
                                                      vessels in support of Department of Defense and Coast Guard requirements.
                                                    • Provided merchant mariner force protection training.




                                                Page 32                                                   GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
(Continued From Previous Page)
Mode                       DOT modal administration                     Examples of actions taken
Motor carrier              Federal Motor Carrier Safety                 • Conducted 31,000 on-site security sensitivity visits for hazardous materials carriers;
                           Administration                                 made recommendations after visits.
                                                                        • Initiated a field operational test to evaluate different safety and security technologies
                                                                          and procedures, and identify the most cost effective means for protecting different
                                                                          types of hazardous cargo for security purposes.
                                                                        • Provided free training on trucks and terrorism to law enforcement officials and
                                                                          industry representatives.
                                                                        • Conducted threat assessment of the hazardous materials industry.
Motor coach                Federal Motor Carrier Safety                 • Developed three courses for drivers on security-related information including,
                           Administration                                 different threats, how to deal with packages, and how to respond in the case of an
                                                                          emergency.
Pipeline                   Research and Special                         • Developed contact list of operators who own critical systems.
                           Programs Administration                      • Convened blue ribbon panel with operators, state regulators, and unions to develop
                           (Office of Pipeline Safety)                    a better understanding of the pipeline system and coordinate efforts of the
                                                                          stakeholders.
                                                                        • Worked with TSA to develop inspection protocols to use for pipeline operator
                                                                          security inspections. The Office of Pipeline Safety and TSA have begun the
                                                                          inspection of major operators.
                                                                        • Created email network of pipeline operators and a call-in telephone number that
                                                                          pipeline operators can use to obtain information.
                                                                        • Directed pipeline operators to identify critical facilities and develop security plans for
                                                                          critical facilities that address deterrence, preparedness, and rapid response and
                                                                          recovery from attacks.
                                                                        • Worked with industry to develop risk-based security guidance, which is tied to
                                                                          national threat levels and includes voluntary, recommended countermeasures.
Rail                       Federal Railroad                             • Shared threat information with railroads and rail labor.
                           Administration                               • Reviewed Association of American Railroads’ and Amtrak’s security plans.
                                                                        • Assisted commuter railroads with their security plans.
                                                                        • Provided funding for security assessments of three commuter railroads, which were
                                                                          included in FTA’s assessment efforts.
                                                                        • Reached out to international community for lessons-learned in rail security.
Transit                    Federal Transit Administration • Awarded $3.4 million in grants to over 80 transit agencies for emergency response
                                                            drills.
                                                          • Offered free security training to transit agencies.
                                                          • Conducted security assessments at the largest 36 transit agencies.
                                                          • Provided technical assistance to 19, with a goal of 60, transit agencies on security
                                                            and emergency plans and emergency response drills.
                                                          • Increased funding for security research and development efforts.
Source: GAO presentation of information provided by DOT modal administrations.
                                                                   a
                                                                    The U.S. Coast Guard was transferred to DHS in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. No. 107-
                                                                   296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002)).


                                                                   In addition to TSA and DOT modal administrations, other federal agencies
                                                                   have also taken actions to improve security.29 For example, the Bureau of

                                                                   29
                                                                     See appendix IV for highlights of final regulations issued since September 11 that govern
                                                                   transportation security.




                                                                   Page 33                                                     GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), previously known as the U.S.
Customs Service, has played a key role in improving port security.30 Since
September 11, the agency has launched a number of initiatives to
strengthen the security of the U.S. border, including ports. The initiatives
are part of a multilayered approach, which rely on partnerships between
foreign nations and the U.S. to identify problems at their source,
cooperation from the global trade community to secure the flow of goods,
and collaboration between federal, state, and local law enforcement and
intelligence agencies to ensure that information is analyzed and used to
target scarce resources on the highest risk issues. Some of the specific
initiatives that CBP has implemented to interdict high risk cargo before it
reaches the U.S. include the following:

• Developing and deploying of a strategy for the detection of nuclear and
  radiological weapons and materials. The elements of this strategy—
  equipment, training, and intelligence—are focused on providing
  inspectors with the tools to detect weapons of mass destruction in cargo
  containers and vehicles. In the maritime environment, this includes the
  deployment of radiation portal monitors, personal radiation detectors,
  large-scale nonintrusive inspection technology, such as truck and
  container x-rays and mobile x-ray vans. Much of the development of this
  equipment has been done in partnership with the Department of Energy.
  Figure 6 shows new mobile gamma ray imaging devices at ports to help
  inspectors examine the contents of cargo containers and vehicles.




30
 The U.S. Customs Service was transferred from the Department of Treasury to DHS in the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002)) and renamed the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.




Page 34                                              GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Figure 6: Photograph of Inspection Equipment in Use




• Establishing the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-
  TPAT), which is a joint government business initiative aimed at securing
  the supply chain of global trade against terrorist exploitation. According
  to CBP, this initiative has leveraged the cooperation of the owners of the
  global supply chain by working with this community to implement and
  share standard security best practices. The members of C-TPAT include
  importing businesses, freight forwarders, carriers, and U.S. port



Page 35                                         GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                                   authorities and terminal operators. According to CBP, C-TPAT members
                                   bring 96 percent of all containers coming into the U.S. After the initial
                                   application and training phase of this program, CBP conducts foreign
                                   and domestic validations to verify that the supply chain security
                                   measures contained in C-TPAT participants’ security profiles are
                                   reliable, accurate, and effective. C-TPAT members are strongly
                                   encouraged to self-police such areas as personnel screening, physical
                                   security procedures and personnel, and the security of service
                                   providers.

                                • Launching the Container Security Initiative (CSI), which is designed
                                  specifically to secure the ocean-going sea container. The key elements
                                  of CSI include using advance information to identify high-risk
                                  containers; inspecting containers identified through the prescreening
                                  process as high-risk before they are shipped to the U.S.; using detection
                                  technology to quickly inspect containers identified as high-risk; and
                                  developing and using smarter, more secure containers. According to
                                  CBP, the U.S. has signed agreements with 18 of the countries with the
                                  world’s largest seaports, which allows for the deployment of U.S.
                                  inspectors and equipment to these foreign seaports, and is beginning the
                                  expansion of CSI to other global ports with significant volume or
                                  strategic locations.



TSA Moves Forward as Its        TSA is moving forward with efforts to secure the entire transportation
Role in Transportation          system. TSA has adopted a systems approach—that is, a holistic rather
                                than a modal approach—to securing the transportation approach. In
Security Evolves
                                addition, TSA is using risk management principles to guide its decision-
                                making. To help TSA make risk-based decisions, TSA is developing
                                standardized criticality, threat, and vulnerability assessment tools. TSA is
                                also planning to establish security standards for all modes of transportation
                                and is launching a number of new security efforts for the maritime and land
                                transportation modes.

TSA Adopts a Systems Approach   TSA is taking a systems approach to securing the transportation system.
to Securing All Modes of        Using this approach, TSA plans to address the security of the entire
Transportation                  transportation system as a whole, rather than focusing on individual modes
                                of transportation. According to TSA officials, using a systems approach to
                                security is appropriate for several reasons. First, the transportation system
                                is intermodal, interdependent, and international. Given the intermodalism
                                of the system, incidents in one mode of transportation could affect other
                                modes. Second, it is important not to drive terrorism from one mode of



                                Page 36                                       GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
transportation to another mode because of perceived lesser security—that
is, make a mode of transportation a more attractive target because another
mode is “hardened” with additional security measures. Third, it is
important that security measures for one mode of transportation are not
overly stringent or too economically challenging compared with others.
Fourth, it is important that the attention on one aspect of transportation
security (e.g., cargo, infrastructure, or passengers) does not leave the other
aspects vulnerable.

The systems approach is reflected in the organizational structure of TSA’s
Office of Maritime and Land Security, which is responsible for the security
of the maritime and land modes of transportation. Rather than organize
around the different modes of transportation, such as DOT’s modal
administrations, the office is organized around cross-modal issues. As
figure 7 shows, the Office of Maritime and Land Security has six divisions,
including Cargo Security and Passenger Security. The director of each
division will be responsible for a specific aspect of security of multiple
modes. For example, the Director of Cargo Security will be responsible for
cargo security for all surface modes of transportation.




Page 37                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                              Figure 7: Organizational Chart of TSA’s Office of Maritime and Land Security, June
                              2003




                              Note: See appendix V to view the organizational chart for TSA and where the Office of Maritime and
                              Land Security is located within the organization.


TSA Applies Risk Management   TSA has adopted a risk management approach for its efforts to enhance the
Principles                    security of the nation’s transportation system. 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
                              in order to link resources with prioritized efforts. Table 3 describes this
                              approach. As figure 8 illustrates, the highest priorities emerge where the
                              three elements of risk management overlap. For example, transportation
                              infrastructure that is determined to be a critical asset, vulnerable to attack,
                              and a likely target would be at most risk and therefore would be a higher
                              priority for funding compared with infrastructure that was only vulnerable
                              to attack. According to TSA officials, risk management principles will drive
                              all decisions—from standard setting to funding priorities to staffing.




                              Page 38                                                     GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Table 3: Elements of a Risk Management Approach

A threat assessment identifies and evaluates potential threats on the basis of factors
such as capabilities, intentions, and past activities. This assessment represents a
systematic approach to identifying potential threats before they materialize. However,
even if updated often, a threat assessment might not adequately capture some emerging
threats. The risk management approach, therefore, uses vulnerability and criticality
assessments as additional input to the decision-making process.
A vulnerability assessment identifies weaknesses that may be exploited by identified
threats and suggests options to address those weaknesses.
A criticality assessment evaluates and prioritizes assets and functions in terms of
specific criteria, such as their importance to public safety and the economy. The
assessment provides a basis for identifying which structures or processes are relatively
more important to protect from attack. As such, it helps managers to determine
operational requirements and target resources to the highest priorities while reducing the
potential for targeting resources to lower priorities.
Source: GAO.




Page 39                                                GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Figure 8: Illustration of How Risk Management Approach Can Guide Decision-
Making




Using risk management principles to guide decision-making is a good
strategy, given the difficult trade-offs TSA will likely have to make as it
moves forward with its security efforts. We have advocated using a risk
management approach to guide federal programs and responses to better
prepare against terrorism and other threats and to better direct finite
national resources to areas of highest priority. As representatives from
local government and industry associations and transportation security
experts repeatedly noted, the size of the transportation system precludes
all assets from being equally protected; moreover, the risks vary by
transportation assets within modes and by modes. In addition, requests for
funding for transportation security enhancements will likely exceed
available resources. Risk management principles can help TSA determine
security priorities and identify appropriate solutions.



Page 40                                         GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Other transportation stakeholders are also using risk management
principles. For example, the rail industry conducted a comprehensive risk
analysis of its infrastructure, which included an assessment of threats,
vulnerabilities, and criticality. The results of the risk analysis formed the
basis for the rail industry’s security management plan, which identified
countermeasures for the different threat levels. Similarly, the pipeline
industry is using a risk management approach in securing its infrastructure.
The Office of Pipeline Safety and industry associations noted that the
pipeline industry had adopted a risk management approach for safety prior
to September 11. As a result, the industry extended this approach to its
security efforts after September 11.

TSA Is Developing Standard Assessment Tools to Help Make Risk-
Based Decisions

To help TSA make risk based decisions, TSA’s Office of Threat Assessment
and Risk Management is developing two assessment tools that will help
assess threats, criticality, and vulnerabilities. The first tool will assess the
criticality of a transportation asset or facility. TSA is working with DHS’
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate to
ensure that TSA’s criticality tool will be consistent with the IAIP’s approach
for managing critical infrastructure. TSA’s criticality tool will incorporate
multiple factors, such as fatalities, economic importance, and socio-
political importance, to arrive at a criticality score. The score will enable
TSA, in conjunction with transportation stakeholders, to rank assets and
facilities within each mode. According to TSA, by identifying and
prioritizing assets and facilities, TSA can focus resources on that which is
deemed most important.

The second tool is referred to as the Transportation Risk Assessment and
Vulnerability Evaluation Tool (TRAVEL). This tool will assess threats and
analyze vulnerabilities for all transportation modes. According to TSA
officials, TSA has worked with a number of organizations in developing
TRAVEL, including the Department of Defense, Sandia National
Laboratories, and AASHTO. TSA is also working with economists on
developing the benefit/cost component of this model. TSA officials believe
that a standard threat and vulnerability assessment tool is needed so that
TSA can identify and compare threats and vulnerabilities across the modes.
If different methodologies are used in assessing the threats and
vulnerabilities, comparisons can be problematic. A standard assessment
tool would ensure consistent methodology. Using TRAVEL, TSA plans to




Page 41                                         GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                              gather comparable threat and vulnerability information across all modes of
                              transportation, which would inform TSA’s risk-based decision-making.

TSA Plans to Issue National   TSA plans to issue national security standards for all modes of
Security Standards            transportation. The federal government has historically set security
                              standards for the aviation sector. For instance, prior to the passage of
                              ATSA, FAA set security standards that the airlines were required to follow
                              in several areas including screening equipment, screener qualifications, and
                              access control systems. In contrast, prior to the September 11 attacks,
                              limited statutory authority existed to require measures to ensure the
                              security of the maritime and land transportation systems. According to a
                              TSA report, the existing regulatory framework leaves the maritime and
                              land transportation systems unacceptably vulnerable to terrorist attack.
                              For example, the rail, transit, and motor coach transportation systems are
                              subject to no mandatory security requirements, resulting in little or no
                              screening of passengers, baggage, or crew. Additionally, seaborne
                              passenger vessel and seaport terminal operators have inconsistent levels
                              and methods of screening, and are largely free to set their own rules about
                              the hiring and training of security personnel. Hence, TSA will set standards
                              to ensure consistency among modes and across the transportation system
                              and to reduce the transportation system’s vulnerability to attacks. TSA
                              plans to begin rolling out the standards starting summer 2003.31

                              According to TSA officials and documents, TSA’s standards will be
                              performance-, risk-, and threat-based, and mandatory. More specifically:

                              • Standards will be performance-based. Rather than prescriptive
                                standards, TSA standards will be performance-based, which will allow
                                transportation operators to determine how best to achieve the desired
                                level of security. TSA officials believe that performance-based standards


                              31
                               The Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate within DHS is working
                              with TSA, Coast Guard, and other federal agencies on developing a set of national standards
                              that would apply to all ports. These efforts are well under way. The Coast Guard has been
                              developing a set of standards since May 2002 as part of its efforts to conduct vulnerability
                              assessments for all U.S. Ports. The standards will go into effect on July 1, 2004, as part of the
                              International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) amendments and the
                              International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) that was adopted by the
                              International Maritime Organization conference in December 2002. The Coast Guard
                              considers that the implementation of these standards is best done through mandating
                              compliance with the SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code. According to TSA, because of
                              Coast Guard's significant role in securing maritime transportation, TSA will likely play a
                              coordination role in the maritime arena.




                              Page 42                                                    GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
   provide for operator flexibility, allow for operators to use their
   professional judgment in enhancing security, and encourage technology
   advancement.

• Standards will be risk-based. Standards will be set for areas for
  which assessments of the threats, vulnerabilities, and criticality indicate
  that an attack would have a national impact. A number of factors could
  be considered in determining “national impact,” such as fatalities and
  economic damage.

• Standards will be threat-based. The standards will be tied to the
  national threat condition and/or local threats. As the threat condition
  escalates, the standards will require transportation operators to
  implement additional countermeasures.

• Standards may be mandatory. The standards will be mandatory when
  the risk level is too high or unacceptable. TSA officials stated that in
  these cases, mandatory standards are needed to ensure accountability.
  In addition, according to TSA officials, voluntary requirements put
  security-conscious transportation operators that implement security
  measures at a competitive disadvantage—that is, they have spent money
  that their competitors may have not spent. This creates a disincentive
  for transportation operators to implement voluntary requirements. TSA
  officials believe that mandatory standards will reduce this problem. In
  determining whether mandatory standards are needed, TSA will review
  the results of criticality and vulnerability assessments, current best
  practices, and voluntary compliance opportunities in conjunction with
  the private sector and other government agencies.

Although TSA officials expect some level of resistance to the standards by
the transportation industry, they believe that their approach of using risk-,
threat-, and performance-based standards will increase the acceptance of
the standards. For example, performance-based standards allow for more
operator flexibility in implementing the standards, compared with rigid,
prescriptive standards. Moreover, TSA plans to issue only a limited number
of standards—that is, standards will be issued only when assessments of
the threats, vulnerabilities, and criticality indicate that the level of risk is
too high or unacceptable.

TSA also expects some level of resistance to the standards from DOT
modal administrations. Although TSA will establish the security standards,
TSA expects that they will be administered and implemented by existing



Page 43                                         GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
agencies and organizations. DOT modal administrations may be reluctant
to assume this role because it could alter their relationships with the
industry. Historically, DOT surface transportation modal administrations’
missions have largely focused on maintaining operations and improving
service and safety, not regulating security. Moreover, the authority to
regulate security varies by DOT modal administration. For example, FTA
has limited authority to regulate and oversee security at transit agencies. In
contrast, FRA has regulatory authority for rail security, and DOT’s Office of
Pipeline Safety has responsibility for writing safety and security regulations
on liquefied natural gas storage facilities. In addition, DOT modal
administrations may be reluctant to administer and implement standards
because of resource concerns. FHWA officials commented that, given the
current uncertainty about the standards and their impacts, FHWA is
reluctant to commit, in advance, to staff or funding to enforce new security
standards.

Because transportation stakeholders will be involved in administering,
implementing, and/or enforcing TSA standards, stakeholder buy-in is
critical to the success of this initiative. Compromise and consensus on the
part of stakeholders is also necessary. However, achieving such consensus
and compromise may be difficult, given the conflicts between some
stakeholders’ goals and interests.

Stakeholders Are Concerned About Pending Standards

Transportation stakeholders expressed concerns about TSA’s plan to issue
mandatory security standards for all modes of transportation. A common
concern raised by associations was that standards represent unfunded
mandates, unless the federal government pays for the standards that it
promulgates. According to the industry and state and local government
associations we spoke to, unfunded mandates create additional financial
burdens for transportation operators, who are already experiencing
financial difficulties. TSA officials said they hope to provide grants to
implement the standards; however, it is unclear at this time if grants will be
available.

Another common concern expressed by transportation security experts
and industry associations is that TSA does not have the necessary expertise
or knowledge to develop appropriate security standards for the industry. In
a 2003 report to Congress, TSA recognizes that each transportation mode
has unique characteristics that make various security measures more or




Page 44                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
less feasible or appropriate.32 However, a number of industry associations,
transportation security experts, and DOT modal administrations expressed
concern that TSA does not have a good understanding of the unique
challenges of the modes, such as the need to maintain accessibility in
transit systems, or the possible negative ramifications—both operationally
and financially—of standards. Officials from one DOT modal
administration noted that industry representatives left a meeting with TSA
officials with serious concerns regarding TSA officials’ understanding of
their industry. Senior TSA officials stated that TSA employees have
extensive subject matter expertise in transportation and security issues.
Moreover, TSA officials stated that they will draw on the expertise and
knowledge of the transportation industry and other DHS agencies, such as
the Coast Guard, as well as all stakeholders in developing the standards.

A number of representatives from industry associations also expressed
concerns that TSA may issue mandatory or regulatory standards, especially
since their industries have taken proactive steps to enhance security since
September 11. Industry associations also noted that the majority of
transportation infrastructure in some modes is privately owned. As such,
transportation operators have an economic incentive to ensure the security
of their infrastructure; hence, operators are voluntarily implementing
increased security measures. For example, the pipeline industry worked
with DOT’s Office of Pipeline Safety to develop industry-wide security
guidelines. These guidelines are risk-based and identify countermeasures
that pipeline operators should implement at different threat levels. The
pipeline guidelines are also voluntary. According to pipeline industry
associations, the pipeline industry is implementing these security
guidelines. Representatives from industry associations stated that TSA
should wait to see if industry-developed, voluntary measures are working
before issuing mandatory standards. TSA officials noted that TSA will
review the results of criticality and vulnerability assessments, current best
practices, and voluntary compliance opportunities in conjunction with the
private sector and other government agencies before issuing mandatory
standards.

Finally, industry representatives expressed concern that TSA has not
adequately included the transportation industry in its development of
standards. Many industry representatives and some DOT officials we met


32
   Transportation Security Administration, Report to Congress on Transportation Security,
(March 31, 2003).




Page 45                                               GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                                  with were unsure of whether TSA was issuing standards, what the
                                  standards would entail, or the time frames for issuing the standards. The
                                  uncertainty about the pending standards can lead to confusion and/or
                                  inaction. For example, Amtrak officials noted that they are reluctant to
                                  spend money to implement certain security measures because they are
                                  worried that TSA will subsequently issue standards that will require
                                  Amtrak to redo its efforts. TSA officials repeatedly told us they understand
                                  the importance of gaining stakeholder buy-in and partnering with the
                                  industry. They also stated that they have conducted outreach to
                                  transportation stakeholders and plan to continue their outreach efforts in
                                  the future. TSA is developing a strategy that will serve as its framework for
                                  communicating with transportation stakeholders and obtaining
                                  stakeholders’ input in TSA’s decision-making. TSA plans to finalize this
                                  strategy in July 2003.

TSA Is Launching Other Security   TSA is also working on a number of additional security efforts, such as
Initiatives                       establishing the Transportation Workers Identification Card (TWIC)
                                  program, developing the next generation of the Computer Assisted
                                  Passenger Pre-Screening System, developing a national transportation
                                  system security plan, and exploring methods to integrate operations and
                                  security, among other things. The TWIC program is intended to improve
                                  access control for the 12 million transportation workers that require
                                  unescorted physical or cyber access to secure areas of the nation’s
                                  transportation modes by establishing a uniform, nationwide standard for
                                  secure identification of transportation workers. Specifically, TWIC will
                                  combine standard background checks and biometrics so that a worker can
                                  be positively matched to his/her credential. Once the program is fully
                                  operational, the TWIC would be the standard credential for transportation
                                  workers and would be accepted by all modes of transportation. According
                                  to TSA, developing a uniform, nationwide standard for identification will
                                  minimize redundant credentialing and background checks.



DOT Modal Agencies Are            As TSA moves forward with new security initiatives, DOT modal
Continuing Forward with           administrations are also continuing their security efforts and, in some
                                  cases, launching new security initiatives. For example, FHWA is
Their Security Efforts
                                  coordinating a series of workshops this year on emergency response and
                                  preparedness for state departments of transportation and other agencies.
                                  FTA also has a number of current initiatives under way in the areas of
                                  public awareness, research, training, technical assistance, and intelligence
                                  sharing. For example, FTA developed a list of the top 20 security actions
                                  transit agencies should implement and is currently working with transit



                                  Page 46                                       GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                            agencies to assist them in implementing these measures. FTA’s goal is to
                            have the largest 30 agencies implement at least 80 percent of these
                            measures by the end of fiscal year 2003.

                            FAA is also continuing its efforts to enhance cyber security in the aviation
                            system. Although the primary responsibility for securing the aviation
                            system was transferred to TSA, FAA remains responsible for protecting the
                            nation’s air traffic control system—both the physical security of its air
                            traffic control facilities and the computer systems. The air traffic control
                            system’s computers help the nation’s air traffic controllers safely direct and
                            separate traffic—sabotaging this system could have disastrous
                            consequences. FAA is moving forward with efforts to increase the physical
                            security of its air traffic control facilities and ensure that contractors who
                            have access to the air traffic control system undergo background checks.



TSA’s and DOT’s Roles and   The roles and responsibilities of TSA and DOT in transportation security
Responsibilities Have Not   have yet to be clearly delineated, which creates the potential for
                            duplicating or conflicting efforts as both entities move forward with their
Been Clearly Defined
                            security efforts. DOT modal administrations were primarily responsible for
                            the security of the transportation system prior to September 11. In
                            November 2001, Congress passed ATSA, which created TSA and gave it
                            primary responsibility for securing all modes of transportation.33 However,
                            during TSA’s first year of existence, TSA’s main focus was on aviation
                            security—more specifically, on meeting ATSA deadlines. While TSA was
                            primarily focusing on aviation security, DOT modal administrations
                            launched various initiatives to enhance the security of the maritime and
                            land transportation modes. With the immediate crisis of meeting many
                            aviation security deadlines behind it, TSA has been able to focus more on
                            the security of all modes of transportation.

                            Legislation has not defined TSA’s role and responsibilities in securing all
                            modes of transportation. In particular, ATSA does not specify TSA’s role
                            and responsibilities in securing the maritime and land transportation
                            modes in detail as it does for aviation security. For instance, the act does
                            not set deadlines for TSA to implement certain transit security
                            requirements. Instead, the act simply states that TSA is responsible for
                            ensuring security in all modes of transportation. The act also did not


                            33
                                 P.L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001).




                            Page 47                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
eliminate DOT modal administrations’ existing statutory responsibilities
for securing the different transportation modes. Moreover, recent
legislation indicates that DOT still has security responsibilities. In
particular, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 states that the Secretary of
Transportation is responsible for the security as well as the safety of rail
and the transport of hazardous materials by all modes.

To clarify their roles and responsibilities in transportation security, DOT
modal administrations and TSA were planning to develop memorandums of
agreement. The purpose of these documents was to define the roles and
responsibilities of the different agencies as they relate to transportation
security and address a variety of issues, including separating safety and
security activities, interfacing with the transportation industry, and
establishing funding priorities. TSA and the DOT modal administrations
worked for months to develop the memorandums of agreement. The draft
agreements were presented to senior DOT and TSA management for review
in early spring of this year. According to DOT’s General Counsel, with the
exception of the memorandum of agreement between FAA and TSA, the
draft memorandums were very generic and did not provide much
clarification. Consequently, DOT and TSA decided not to execute or sign
the memorandums of agreement, except for the memorandum of
agreement between FAA and TSA, which was signed on February 28,
2003.34

The General Counsel suggested several reasons why the majority of draft
memorandums of agreement were too general. First, as TSA’s departure
date approached—that is, the date that TSA transferred from DOT to DHS,
TSA and DOT modal administration officials may have grown concerned
about formally binding the organizations to specific roles and
responsibilities. Second, the working relationships between TSA and most
of the DOT modal administrations is still very new; as a result, all of the
potential issues, problem areas, or overlap have yet to be identified. Thus,
identifying items to include in the memorandums of agreement was more
difficult.

Rather than execute memorandums of agreement, the Secretary of
Transportation and the Administrator of TSA exchanged correspondence


34
 DOT and TSA have signed other memorandums of agreement that are narrow in scope and
address a specific issue. For example, TSA and DOT signed a memorandum of agreement
regarding the processing of civil rights complaints.




Page 48                                            GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                          that commits each entity to continued coordination and collaboration on
                          security measures. In the correspondence, the Secretary and Administrator
                          also agreed to use the memorandum of agreement between TSA and FAA
                          as a framework for their interactions on security matters for all other
                          modes. TSA and DOT officials stated that they believe memorandums of
                          agreement are a good strategy for delineating roles and responsibilities and
                          they would be open to using memorandums of agreement in the future.



Experts and               Transportation security experts and representatives of state and local
                          government and industry associations we contacted generally believe that
Associations Identified   the transportation system is more secure today than it was prior to
Future Actions to         September 11. Transportation stakeholders have worked hard to
                          strengthen the security of the system. Nevertheless, transportation experts,
Advance the Security      industry representatives, and federal officials all recommend that more
of the Transportation     work be done. Transportation experts and state and local government and
System                    industry representatives identified a number of actions that, in their view,
                          should be implemented to enhance security, including clarifying federal
                          roles and coordinating federal efforts, developing a transportation security
                          strategy, funding security enhancements, investing in research and
                          development, and providing better intelligence information and related
                          guidance. The experts and representatives generally believe that these
                          actions are the responsibility of the federal government.

                          Clear federal roles and responsibilities is a core issue in transportation
                          security, according to transportation experts and associations that we
                          contacted. The lack of clarity about the roles and responsibilities of federal
                          actors in transportation security creates the potential for confusion,
                          duplication, and conflicts. Understanding roles, responsibilities, and whom
                          to call is crucial in an emergency. However, representatives from several
                          associations stated that their members were unclear of which agency to
                          contact for their various security concerns and which agency has oversight
                          for certain issues. Furthermore, they do not have contacts within these
                          agencies. As mentioned earlier, several industry representatives reported
                          that their members are receiving different messages from various federal
                          agencies involved in transportation security, which creates confusion and
                          frustration among the industry. They said the uncertainty about federal
                          roles and the lack of coordination is straining intergovernmental
                          relationships, draining resources, and raising the potential for problems in
                          responding to terrorism. One industry association told us, for instance, that
                          it has been asked by three different federal agencies to participate in three
                          separate studies of the same issue.



                          Page 49                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
According to transportation experts and associations we contacted, a
national transportation strategy is essential to moving forward with
transportation security. It is crucial for helping stakeholders identify
priorities, leveraging resources, establishing stakeholder performance
expectations, and creating incentives for stakeholders to improve security.
Currently, local government associations view the absence of performance
expectations—coupled with limited threat information—as a major
obstacle in focusing their people and resources on high priority threats,
particularly at elevated threat levels. The experts also noted that modal
strategies—no matter how complete—cannot address the complete
transportation security problem and will leave gaps in preparedness. As
mentioned earlier, TSA is in the process of developing a national
transportation system security plan,35 which according to the Deputy
Administrator of TSA, will provide an overarching framework for the
security of all modes.

Transportation security experts and association representatives we
contacted believe that the federal government should provide funding for
needed security improvements. While an overall security strategy is a
prerequisite to investing wisely, providing adequate funding also is
essential. Setting security goals and strategies without adequate funding
diminishes stakeholders’ commitment and willingness to absorb initial
security investments and long-term operating costs, an expert emphasized.
Industry and state and local government associations also commented that
federal funding should accompany any federal security standards;
otherwise these standards will be considered unfunded mandates that the
industry and state and local governments have to absorb.

The federal government needs to play a strong role in investing in and
setting a research and development agenda for transportation security,
according to most transportation security experts and associations we
contacted. They view this as an appropriate role for the federal
government, since the products of research and development endeavors
would likely benefit the entire transportation system, not just individual
modes or operators. TSA is actively engaged in research and development
projects, such as the development of the next generation explosive
detection systems for baggage, hardening of aircraft and cargo/baggage
containers, biometrics and other access control methods, and human


35
 TSA hopes to have a draft of the national transportation system security plan prepared by
the end of this year.




Page 50                                                GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
              factors initiatives to identify methods to improve screener performance, at
              its Transportation Security Laboratory in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
              However, TSA noted that continued adequate funding for research and
              development is paramount in order for TSA to be able to meet security
              demands with up-to-date and reliable technology.

              Transportation security experts and representatives from state and local
              government and industry associations stated that the federal government
              needs to play a vital role in sharing information—specifically, intelligence
              information and related guidance. Representatives from numerous
              associations commented that the federal government needs to provide
              timely, localized, actionable intelligence information. General threat
              warnings are not helpful. Rather, transportation operators want more
              specific intelligence information so that they can understand the true
              nature of a potential threat and implement appropriate security measures.
              Without more localized and actionable intelligence, stakeholders said they
              run the risk of wasting resources on unneeded security measures or not
              providing an adequate level of security. Moreover, local government
              officials often are not allowed to receive specific intelligence information
              because they do not have appropriate federal security clearances. Also,
              there is little federal guidance on how local authorities should respond to a
              specific threat or general threat warnings. For example, San Francisco
              police were stationed at the Golden Gate Bridge to respond to the elevated
              national threat condition. However, without information about the nature
              of the threat to San Francisco's large transportation infrastructure or clear
              federal expectations for a response, it is difficult to judge whether actions
              like this are the most effective use of police protection, according to
              representatives from a local government association.



Conclusions   During TSA’s first year of existence, TSA met a number of challenges,
              including successfully meeting many congressional deadlines for aviation
              security. With the immediate crisis of meeting key aviation security
              deadlines behind TSA, it can now examine the security of the entire
              transportation system. As TSA becomes more active in securing the
              maritime and land transportation modes, it will become even more
              important that the roles of TSA and DOT modal administrations are clearly
              defined. Lack of clearly defined roles among the federal entities could lead
              to duplication and confusion. More importantly, it could hamper the
              transportation sector’s ability to prepare for and respond to attacks.




              Page 51                                       GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Recommendation for   To clarify and define the roles and responsibilities of TSA and DOT modal
                     administrations in transportation security matters, we recommend that the
Executive Action     Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of Homeland Security use a
                     mechanism, such as a memorandum of agreement to clearly delineate their
                     roles and responsibilities. At a minimum, this mechanism should establish
                     the responsibilities of each entity in setting, administering, and
                     implementing security standards and regulations, determining funding
                     priorities, and interfacing with the transportation industry as well as define
                     each entity’s role in the inevitable overlap of some safety and security
                     activities. After the roles and responsibilities of each entity are clearly
                     defined, this information should be communicated to all transportation
                     stakeholders.



Agency Comments      We provided DOT, DHS, and Amtrak with a draft of this report for review
                     and comment. Amtrak generally agreed with our findings and
                     recommendation and provided some technical comments, which we have
                     incorporated into this report where appropriate.

                     DOT and DHS generally agreed with the report’s findings. However, they
                     disagreed with the conclusion and recommendation that their roles and
                     responsibilities need to be clarified and defined. The two departments
                     stated that the roles and responsibilities of each entity is clear—that is,
                     DHS has primary responsibility for transportation security and DOT will
                     play a supporting role in such matters. We agree that the Aviation and
                     Transportation Security Act36 (ATSA) gave TSA primary responsibility for
                     securing all modes of transportation. However, neither this act, nor other
                     legislation defined TSA’s roles and responsibilities in securing all modes of
                     transportation. Specifically, ATSA does not specify TSA’s role and
                     responsibilities in securing the maritime and land transportation modes in
                     detail as it does for aviation security. The act also did not eliminate DOT
                     modal administrations’ existing statutory responsibilities for securing the
                     different modes of transportation. Moreover, recent legislation clarifies
                     that DOT still has transportation security responsibilities. In particular, the
                     Homeland Security Act of 2002 states that the Secretary of Transportation
                     is responsible for the security as well as the safety of rail and the transport
                     of hazardous materials by all modes.


                     36
                          P.L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001).




                     Page 52                                         GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
In addition, although DOT and DHS believe their roles and responsibilities
are clearly defined, transportation security stakeholders we contacted are
not as certain. For example, representatives from several associations
stated that their members were unclear as to which agency to contact for
their various security concerns and which agency has oversight for certain
issues. Representatives from several associations also told us that their
members are receiving different messages from the various federal
agencies involved in transportation security.

Furthermore, as noted in the report, both TSA and DOT are moving
forward with transportation security efforts. As both entities continue with
their security efforts, it is important that the roles and responsibilities of
each entity are coordinated and clearly defined. The lack of clarity can lead
to duplication, confusion, and/or gaps in preparedness. We therefore
continue to recommend that DOT and DHS use a mechanism, such as a
memorandum of agreement, to clarify and define DOT modal
administration’s and TSA’s roles and responsibilities in transportation
security. After the roles and responsibilities of each entity are clearly
defined, this information should be communicated to all transportation
stakeholders.

DOT and DHS also noted that the title of the draft report, Transportation
Security: More Federal Coordination Needed to Help Address Security
Challenges, as well as our conclusions and recommendations place too
much emphasis on coordination. To better capture our conclusions and
recommendations—that is, that the roles and responsibilities of TSA and
DOT in security matters should be clearly delineated and communicated to
all transportation security stakeholders—we have changed the report’s title
to Transportation Security: Federal Action Needed to Help Address
Security Challenges. However, we disagree that the report places too much
emphasis on the lack of coordination between DOT and DHS. As noted
above, representatives from several associations told us that their
members have received conflicting messages from the federal agencies
involved in transportation security. Moreover, there appears to be a break
down in communication between TSA and DOT about current security
initiatives. For example, although TSA officials stated that they have
informed DOT about their plans to issue security standards, some DOT
officials we met with were unsure as to whether TSA was issuing
standards, what the standards would entail, or the time frames for issuing
the standards.




Page 53                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
In addition to their written comments, DHS and DOT provided technical
comments to our draft, which we have incorporated into the report where
appropriate.

See appendixes II and III for DOT’s and DHS’ comments and our responses.


As we agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from
the date of this letter. We will then send copies of this report to the
Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, the President
and Chief Executive Officer of Amtrak, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, and interested congressional committees. We will
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on our Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
on (202) 512-2834 or at guerrerop@gao.gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.




Peter Guerrero
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues




Page 54                                         GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
List of Requesters

The Honorable John McCain
Chairman
Committee on Commerce,
  Science, and Transportation
United States Senate

The Honorable Ernest Hollings
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Commerce,
  Science, and Transportation
United States Senate

The Honorable James Jeffords
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Environment and
  Public Works
United States Senate

The Honorable Harry Reid
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Transportation
  and Infrastructure
Committee on Environment and
  Public Works
United States Senate

The Honorable Thomas Carper
United States Senate

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senate

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senate

The Honorable Gordon Smith
United States Senate




Page 55                                GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology                                                                               A
                                                                                                    A
                                                                                                    ppep
                                                                                                       nen
                                                                                                         d
                                                                                                         xIeis




             To address our four objectives, we conducted structured interviews with
             officials from TSA, Amtrak, and DOT, representatives from the major
             transportation industry associations and state and local government
             associations, and select transportation security experts. We selected
             transportation security experts based on their knowledge/expertise and
             reputation as being an expert in the transportation security arena. We also
             consulted with the National Academy of Sciences in identifying appropriate
             transportation security experts. Table 4 shows the federal agencies,
             industry associations, transportation security experts, and state and local
             government associations that were interviewed. Through these structured
             interviews we collected information on the challenges that exist in securing
             the transportation system, vulnerabilities of different modes, actions that
             transportation stakeholders—including the federal, state, and local
             governments and the operators—have taken to enhance security since
             September 11, TSA’s and DOT’s ongoing and planned security efforts, roles
             and responsibilities of TSA and DOT in securing the transportation system,
             and future security actions that industry associations and security experts
             believe are needed. We synthesized and analyzed the information from the
             structured interviews.



             Table 4: List of Interviewees

             Federal agencies
             Amtrak
             Department of Transportation (DOT)
                General Counsel
                Intermodal Hazardous Materials Program
                Office of Emergency Transportation
                Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)
             Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
                Office of the Chief Information Officer
                Office of Security and Investigations (ASI)
             Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
             Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
             Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
             Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
             Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)
             Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
                Assistant Administrator for Aviation Operations




             Page 56                                               GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix I
Scope and Methodology




(Continued From Previous Page)
   Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
   Office of Maritime and Land Security
   Office of Policy (Aviation)
   Risk Management/Strategic Planning
   Support Systems Directorate
United States Coast Guard
Industry associations
Air Transport Association (ATA)
American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)
American Bus Association (ABA)
American Gas Association (AGA)
American Petroleum Institute (API)
American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)
American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL)
Association of American Railroads (AAR)
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)
Consolidated Safety Services (CSS)
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)
National Private Truck Council (NPTC)
United Motorcoach Association (UMA)
Transportation security experts
Annabelle Boyd, President and Senior Consultant, Boyd, Caton & Grant Transportation
Group, Inc.
Mortimer L. Downey III, PB-Consult, Inc.
Stephen E. Flynn, Ph.D., Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies,
Council on Foreign Relations
Yacov Y. Haimes, Director, Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems,
University of Virginia
Arnold M. Howitt, Ph.D., Executive Director, Taubman Center for State and Local
Government, Director, Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness, Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University
Brian M. Jenkins, Senior Advisor to the President, RAND Corporation
Douglas R. Laird, Principal, Laird & Associates, Inc.
James Wilding, Executive Director (Retired), Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority
State and local government associations
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
National Association of Counties (NACO)



Page 57                                                 GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix I
Scope and Methodology




(Continued From Previous Page)
National Emergency Management Association (NEMA)
National League of Cities (NLC)
Source: GAO.


In addition to the structured interviews, we analyzed the administration’s
National Strategy for Homeland Security and the National Strategy for
the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s The Terrorist Threat to the U.S.
Homeland: An FBI Assessment. We also reviewed current transportation
security-related research as well as transportation security-related reports
and documents from TSA, Amtrak, and DOT, including strategic planning
documents, memorandums, program descriptions, and budget and
financial documents. We also analyzed security-related documents from
industry associations, including action plans, operational information, and
reports, and the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. We also
incorporated the findings of previous GAO reports on port, transit,
aviation, and homeland security.1

We conducted our work from February 2003 through May 2003, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.




1
 In preparing these previous reports, we contacted numerous transportation security
stakeholders, including transit agencies, port authorities, and local and state governments
as well as representatives from the chemical and maritime industries. We also contacted
various federal departments including the Departments of Defense, Energy, Homeland
Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services.




Page 58                                                 GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of
Transportation                                                      AppenIx
                                                                          di




Note: GAO comments
supplementing those in
the report text appear
at the end of this
appendix.




See comment 1.




See comment 2.




See comment 3.




                         Page 59   GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                 Appendix II
                 Comments from the Department of
                 Transportation




See comment 4.




See comment 5.




                 Page 60                           GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
               Appendix II
               Comments from the Department of
               Transportation




               The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Transportation
               letter dated June 10, 2003.



GAO Comments   1. We agree that the title of the report should be changed. Our conclusions
                  and recommendation call for the roles and responsibilities of TSA and
                  DOT in security matters to be clearly delineated and communicated to
                  all transportation security stakeholders. To more fully capture our
                  conclusions and recommendations, we have changed the report’s title
                  to Transportation Security: Federal Action Needed To Help Address
                  Security Challenges.

                   However, we disagree that our recommendation advances an “overly
                   simplistic conclusion that ‘more Federal coordination’ is somehow a
                   meaningful problem or a key to meeting transportation security
                   challenges.” Although coordination does not solve all security
                   challenges, it is a key element in meeting transportation security
                   challenges. As we have noted in previous reports, coordination among
                   all levels of the government and the private industry is critical to the
                   success of security efforts. The lack of coordination can lead to
                   problems such as duplication and/or conflicting efforts, gaps in
                   preparedness, and confusion. Moreover, the lack of coordination can
                   strain intergovernmental relationships, drain resources, and raise the
                   potential for problems in responding to terrorism. The administration’s
                   National Strategy for Homeland Security and the National Strategy
                   for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets
                   also emphasize the importance of and need for coordination in security
                   efforts. In particular, the National Strategy for the Physical Protection
                   of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets notes that protecting
                   critical infrastructure, such as the transportation system, “requires a
                   unifying organization, a clear purpose, a common understanding of
                   roles and responsibilities, accountability, and a set of well-understood
                   coordinating processes.” (Italics added for emphasis.)

               2. We disagree that the commitment of TSA and DOT to broad and routine
                  consultations through numerous formal and informal mechanisms is
                  working. As we noted throughout the report, representatives from
                  several associations told us that they have received conflicting
                  messages from the federal agencies involved in transportation security.
                  Representatives from several associations also stated that their
                  members were unclear as to which agency to contact for their various
                  security concerns and which agency has oversight for certain issues.



               Page 61                                       GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix II
Comments from the Department of
Transportation




    Moreover, there appears to be a break down in communication
    between TSA and DOT about current security initiatives. For example,
    although TSA officials stated that they have informed DOT about their
    plans to issue security standards, some DOT officials we met with were
    unsure as to whether TSA was issuing standards, what the standards
    would entail, or the time frames for issuing the standards.

3. We do not believe the correspondence exchanged by Secretary Mineta
   and Admiral Loy adequately defines the roles and responsibilities of
   TSA and DOT in security issues. Rather than delineate the roles and
   responsibilities of each entity in security matters, such as determining
   funding priorities and interfacing with stakeholders, the
   correspondence primarily commits each entity to continued
   coordination and collaboration on security measures. In the
   correspondence, the Secretary and Administrator also agreed to use the
   memorandum of agreement between TSA and the Federal Aviation
   Administration (FAA) as a framework for their interactions on security
   matters for all other modes. Given the complexities and unique
   challenges in securing the different modes of transportation, we do not
   believe using the memorandum of agreement between TSA and FAA as
   a framework is sufficient. The lack of clearly defined roles and
   responsibilities can lead to duplication, confusion, conflicts, and most
   importantly, gaps in preparedness.

    Although designating a DOT liaison to TSA is a step in the right
    direction, the roles and responsibilities of each entity and the
    coordinating processes need to be documented. Departures of key
    individuals within each entity, such as the designated DOT liaison to
    TSA, have the potential to erode informal networks. Given the
    importance of security efforts, coordinating processes between TSA
    and DOT need to be documented so that they span the terms of various
    administrations and individuals.

4. We agree that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act1 (ATSA)
   gave TSA primary responsibility for securing all modes of
   transportation. However, neither this act, nor other legislation, has
   defined TSA roles and responsibilities in securing all modes of
   transportation. Specifically, ATSA does not specify TSA’s roles and
   responsibilities in securing the maritime and land transportation modes


1
P.L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001).




Page 62                                      GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix II
Comments from the Department of
Transportation




    in detail as it does for aviation security. The act also did not eliminate
    DOT modal administrations’ existing statutory responsibilities for
    securing the different modes of transportation. Moreover, recent
    legislation clarifies that DOT still has transportation security
    responsibilities. In particular, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 states
    that the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for the security as
    well as the safety of rail and the transport of hazardous materials by all
    modes.

    To clarify and define DOT’s and TSA’s roles and responsibilities in
    transportation security, we believe that these entities should establish a
    mechanism, such as a memorandum of agreement. Using such a
    mechanism would serve to clarify, delineate, and document the roles
    and responsibilities of each entity. It would also serve to hold each
    entity accountable for its transportation security responsibilities.
    Finally, it could serve as a vehicle to communicate the roles and
    responsibilities of each entity to transportation security stakeholders.

    The mechanism—whether it is a memorandum of agreement or other
    document—used to clarify and define DOT’s and TSA’s roles and
    responsibilities should not be static. Rather, it should be a living
    document that changes as each entity’s roles and responsibilities in
    transportation security matters evolve and events occur.

5. We disagree that all of DOT’s ongoing security efforts are nonpolicy
   making activities. For example, the Research and Special Programs
   Administration issued regulations in March 2003 that requires shippers
   and carriers of hazardous materials to develop and implement security
   plans and to include a security component in their employee training
   programs.

    While DOT’s role in security efforts may decrease in the future, it seems
    unlikely that DOT will be devoid of any security responsibilities in the
    future. For example, as noted in the report, the Homeland Security Act
    of 2002 states that the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for the
    security as well as the safety of rail and the transport of hazardous
    materials by all modes. In addition, the Maritime Transportation
    Security Act of 20022 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to train
    and certify maritime security professionals and establish a grant


2
P.L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001).




Page 63                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix II
Comments from the Department of
Transportation




    program to fund the implementation of Area Maritime Transportation
    Security Plans and facility security plans. Further, although the primary
    responsibility for securing the aviation system was transferred to TSA,
    FAA remains responsible for protecting the nation’s air traffic control
    system—both the physical security of its air traffic control facilities and
    computer systems.

    Although DOT recognizes that DHS has the lead in transportation
    security matters, it could be difficult to distinguish its role in
    maintaining transportation operations and improving transportation
    service and safety from DHS’ role in securing the transportation
    system. Security is often intertwined with transportation operations
    and safety. For example, installing a fence around truck yards could be
    considered both a safety and security measure. Further security
    measures that restrict the flow of passengers or freight through the
    transportation system could have serious consequences on
    transportation operations. Because of these interactions and overlap,
    the roles and responsibilities of DOT and DHS in transportation safety
    and security can be blurred. Consequently, we continue to believe the
    entities should establish a mechanism to help clarify and delineate their
    roles and responsibilities in security matters.




Page 64                                         GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of Homeland
Security                                                            Appen
                                                                        Ix
                                                                         di




Note: GAO comments
supplementing those in
the report text appear
at the end of this
appendix.




See comment 1.




                         Page 65   GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                 Appendix III
                 Comments from the Department of Homeland
                 Security




See comment 2.




See comment 3.




See comment 4.




                 Page 66                                    GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix III
Comments from the Department of Homeland
Security




Page 67                                    GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
               Appendix III
               Comments from the Department of Homeland
               Security




               The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Homeland
               Security letter dated June 11, 2003.



GAO Comments   1. We disagree that the report overstates the lack of coordination between
                  DHS and DOT and that mechanisms to ensure coordination of
                  responsibilities is unnecessary. Although DHS and DOT report that they
                  are coordinating on security matters, based on our discussions with
                  representatives from state and local government and industry
                  associations, it appears that there is a need to improve such efforts. As
                  we noted throughout the report, representatives from several
                  associations told us that they have received conflicting messages from
                  the federal agencies involved in transportation security.
                  Representatives from several associations also stated that their
                  members were unclear as to which agency to contact for their various
                  security concerns and which agency has oversight for certain issues.
                  Moreover, there appears to be a break down in communication
                  between TSA and DOT about current security initiatives. For example,
                  although TSA officials stated that they have informed DOT about their
                  plans to issue security standards, some DOT officials we met with were
                  unsure as to whether TSA was issuing standards, what the standards
                  would entail, or the time frames for issuing the standards.

                   We agree that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act1 (ATSA)
                   gave TSA primary responsibility for securing all modes of
                   transportation. However, neither this act, or other legislation, has
                   defined TSA’s roles and responsibilities in securing all modes of
                   transportation. Specifically, ATSA does not specify TSA’s role and
                   responsibilities in securing the maritime and land transportation modes
                   in detail as it does for aviation security. The act also did not eliminate
                   DOT modal administrations’ existing statutory responsibilities for
                   securing the different modes of transportation. Moreover, recent
                   legislation clarifies that DOT still has transportation security
                   responsibilities. In particular, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 states
                   that the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for the security as
                   well as the safety of rail and the transport of hazardous materials by all
                   modes.



               1
               P.L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001).




               Page 68                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix III
Comments from the Department of Homeland
Security




    To clarify and define DOT’s and TSA’s roles and responsibilities in
    transportation security, we believe that these entities should establish a
    mechanism, such as a memorandum of agreement. Using such a
    mechanism would serve to clarify, delineate, and document the roles
    and responsibilities of each entity. It would also serve to hold each
    entity accountable for its transportation security responsibilities.
    Finally, it could serve as a vehicle to communicate the roles and
    responsibilities of each entity to transportation security stakeholders.

    The mechanism—whether it is a memorandum of agreement or other
    document—used to clarify and define DOT’s and TSA’s roles and
    responsibilities should not be static. Rather, it should be a living
    document that changes as each entity’s roles and responsibilities in
    transportation security matters evolve and events occur.

2. We disagree that the report suggests that the continuation of security
   efforts by the DOT modal administrations represents a lack of
   coordination. The report credits TSA for meeting a number of aviation
   security deadlines during its first year of existence and highlights the
   efforts of DOT modal administrations and other federal agencies to
   improve the security of all modes since September 11. We also note that
   TSA is beginning to assert a greater role in securing all modes of
   transportation and DOT modal administrations are continuing or
   launching new security efforts. We did not suggest that the continuation
   of such efforts by DOT modal administrations represents a lack of
   coordination. Rather, we noted that as both entities move forward with
   security efforts, it is increasingly important that the roles of TSA and
   DOT modal administrations are clearly defined. The lack of clearly
   defined roles and responsibilities can lead to duplication, confusion,
   conflicts, and most importantly, gaps in preparedness.

3. Our intention is not to suggest that the federal government’s efforts to
   secure the non-aviation modes of transportation have been insufficient.
   To the contrary, we highlight the efforts by DOT modal administrations
   and other federal agencies to secure the maritime and land modes of
   transportation. We also recognize that TSA’s aviation security focus
   during its first year of existence was primarily due to the ATSA
   deadlines.

4. We agree that the newly created DHS brings a number of agencies
   responsible for transportation security under one roof, which could
   ultimately improve coordination and streamline and strengthen



Page 69                                        GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix III
Comments from the Department of Homeland
Security




    security efforts. However, this does not solve all the potential
    coordination problems we highlight in the report because important
    transportation stakeholders—specifically, the DOT modal
    administrations—are housed in another department. Because both
    DHS agencies and DOT modal administrations are moving forward with
    transportation security initiatives, it is critical that the roles and
    responsibilities of each entity are clearly delineated and communicated
    to all stakeholders and that they coordinate their security efforts. The
    lack of such clarification, communication, and coordination could
    create problems, such as duplication of efforts and gaps in
    preparedness.




Page 70                                       GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix IV

Highlights of Current Laws and Regulations
Governing Transportation Security                                                                                                   Appen
                                                                                                                                        V
                                                                                                                                        Id
                                                                                                                                         xi




Table 5: Authorizations


                                               Modes                                                         Related target dates
Public law - Authorization                     impacted   Key provisions                                     for compliance
Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Pub. All        Established Transportation Security                11/19/2001
L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 et seq. (2001).              Administration (TSA), responsible for, inter
November 19, 2001                                         alia, security in all modes of transportation.
                                               Aviation   Established a more comprehensive federal
                                                          air marshals program for international and
                                                          domestic flights.
                                               Aviation   Deployment of federal law enforcement
                                                          officers at airports to meet aviation safety and
                                                          security concerns.
                                               Aviation   Directed FAA, in consultation with TSA, to         1/18/02
                                                          develop security-training programs for flight
                                                          and cabin crew.
                                               Aviation   Deployment of federal personnel for the            11/19/02
                                                          screening of passengers and baggage at
                                                          airports.
                                               Aviation   Appointed Federal Security Managers to             11/19/02
                                                          oversee the screening of passengers and
                                                          baggage at each airport.
                                               Aviation   Authorizes TSA to deploy explosive detection       12/31/2002
                                                          systems (EDS) or equivalent measures
                                                          allowed by law at all U.S. airports.
                                               Aviation   Authorized $500,000,000 (FY 2002) for FAA          4/1/2003
                                                          to provide federal grants to fortify cockpit
                                                          doors and for other aircraft security
                                                          measures.




                                              Page 71                                              GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                                             Appendix IV
                                             Highlights of Current Laws and Regulations
                                             Governing Transportation Security




(Continued From Previous Page)

                                             Modes                                                            Related target dates
Public law - Authorization                   impacted       Key provisions                                    for compliance
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.   All            Creates the Department of Homeland
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 et seq. (2002).                     Security.
November 25, 2002                            All            Creates Border and Transportation Security
                                                            Directorate, responsible for maintaining the
                                                            security of borders and transportation
                                                            systems.
                                             Aviation       Training and deputizing pilots to be Federal      2/25/2003
                                                            Flight Deck Officers to defend the flight decks
                                                            of aircrafts in flight.
                                             All            Transferred Transportation Security               3/1/2003
                                                            Administration and Coast Guard from
                                                            Department of Transportation to Department
                                                            of Homeland Security.
                                             Aviation       Moved date for EDS installation in all U.S.       12/31/2003
                                                            airports.
                                             All            Requires all companies that transport or ship
                                                            explosives to give the ATF the names and
                                                            identifying information of all employees
                                                            authorized to possess explosive materials.
                                                            Requires the ATF to conduct background
                                                            checks of employees to determine if they are
                                                            prohibited from possessing explosive
                                                            materials.
                                             All            Expands the responsibilities of the Research
                                                            and Special Programs Administration
                                                            (RSPA), within the Department of
                                                            Transportation, for regulating hazardous
                                                            materials to include hazardous materials
                                                            transportation security.
                                             All            Protects critical infrastructure information
                                                            voluntarily submitted to a covered federal
                                                            agency from the Freedom of Information Act
                                                            and other federal and state disclosure
                                                            requirements.




                                             Page 72                                                GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                                                Appendix IV
                                                Highlights of Current Laws and Regulations
                                                Governing Transportation Security




(Continued From Previous Page)

                                                Modes                                                             Related target dates
Public law - Authorization                      impacted       Key provisions                                     for compliance
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002,   Seaport        Set up a National Maritime Transportation
Pub. L. No. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064 (2002).                    Security Plan.
November 25, 2002                                              Implement Area Maritime Transportation
                                                               Security Plans and coordinate area plans.
                                                               Develop and maintain an antiterrorism cargo
                                                               identification, tracking, and screening system
                                                               for containerized cargo.
                                                               To assign Coast Guard personnel as sea
                                                               marshals to deter or respond to acts of
                                                               terrorism.
                                                               Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
                                                               train and certify maritime security
                                                               professionals.
                                                               Establishes a program to evaluate and certify
                                                               systems of international intermodal
                                                               transportation.
                                                               The Coast Guard shall conduct a vulnerability
                                                               assessment of facilities and vessels that may
                                                               be involved in a transportation security
                                                               incident at least every 5 years.
                                                               The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
                                                               issue biometric transportation security cards
                                                               and enhanced crew-member identification for
                                                               individuals who require access to secure
                                                               areas of vessels and port facilities.
                                                               The Secretary of Transportation, acting
                                                               through the Maritime Administration, shall
                                                               establish a grant program to fund the
                                                               implementation of Area Maritime
                                                               Transportation Security Plans and facility
                                                               security plans.
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-       All            Mandates federal background checks of
56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).                                      individuals operating vehicles carrying
October 26, 2001                                               hazardous materials.
                                                               Criminalizes terrorist attacks and other acts of   10/26/2001
                                                               violence against mass transportation
                                                               systems.
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002,        Pipeline       Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
Pub. L. No. 107-355, 116 Stat. 2985 (2002).                    reinforce pipeline facilities deemed potentially
December 17, 2002                                              unsafe or vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Trade Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-210, 116     All            Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to
Stat. 933 (2002).                                              create an electronic data interchange system
August 6, 2002                                                 to ensure transportation safety and security
                                                               of cargo.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Code.




                                                Page 73                                                 GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                                             Appendix IV
                                             Highlights of Current Laws and Regulations
                                             Governing Transportation Security




Table 6: Appropriations


                                  Modes
Public law – appropriation        impacted    Key provisions                                     Funding appropriated
2001 Emergency Supplemental All               Provided funding for increased transportation      Specific appropriations are found
Appropriations Act for Recovery               security. Provided funding for repairing public    in the Pub. L. No. 107-117.
from and Response to Terrorist                facilities and transportation systems damaged by
Attacks on the United States,                 the attacks.
Pub. L. No. 107-38, 115 Stat.
220 (2001).
September 18, 2001
2002 Department of                Aviation    Provided funding for TSA for civil aviation        $1,250,000,000 (app. FY 2002)
Transportation Appropriations                 security services pursuant to the Aviation and
Act, Pub. L. No. 107-87, 115                  Transportation Security Act.
Stat. 833 (2001).                 Aviation    Provided funding for FAA operations for civil      $150,154,000 (app. FY 2002)
December 18, 2001                             aviation security program activities.
Department Of Defense And         Seaport     Funding for a port security program.               $93,300,000 (app. FY 2002)
Emergency Supplemental            Seaport     Funding for Coast Guard for their response to      $209,150,000 (app. FY 2002)
Appropriations for Recovery                   9/11 terrorist attacks.
From and Response to Terrorist
Attacks on the United States      Aviation    Funding for FAA for their response to 9/11         $535,500,000 (app. FY 2002)
Act, 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-117,               terrorist attacks.
115 Stat. 2230 (2002).            Highway     Funding for Federal Highway Administration for     $175,000,000 (app. FY 2002)
January 10, 2002                              their response to 9/11 terrorist attacks.
                                  Transit     Funding for Federal Transit Administration for     $123,000,000 (app. FY 2002)
                                              their response to 9/11 terrorist attacks.
                                  Rail        Funding for Federal Railroad Administration for    $106,000,000 (app. FY 2002)
                                              their response to 9/11 terrorist attacks.
                                  All         Funding for Research and Special Programs          $2,500,000 (app. FY 2002)
                                              Administration.




                                             Page 74                                             GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                                              Appendix IV
                                              Highlights of Current Laws and Regulations
                                              Governing Transportation Security




(Continued From Previous Page)

                                  Modes
Public law – appropriation        impacted     Key provisions                                      Funding appropriated
2002 Supplemental                 Aviation     Provides for the installation of explosives         $738,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
Appropriations Act for Further                 detection systems in commercial service
Recovery from and Response                     airports.
to Terrorist Attacks on the       Seaport      Provides funds for port security activities,        $125,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
United States, Pub. L. No. 107-                including Port Security Grants.
206, 116 Stat. 820 (2002).
August 2, 2002                    Seaport      Appropriates funds for the port security pilot      $28,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                               program, Operation Safe Commerce.
                                  Motor Coach Appropriates grants and contracts to enhance         $15,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                              security for intercity bus operations.
                                  Aviation     Funds for procurement of air-ground                 $15,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                               communications systems and devices for the
                                               Federal Air Marshal Program.
                                  All          Funds for grants and contracts for radiation        $4,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                               detection system test and evaluation.
                                  Aviation     Funds for grants to airport authorities for pilot   $17,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                               projects to improve airport terminal security.
                                  All          Funds for grants and contracts for security,        $10,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                               research, development and pilot projects.
                                  Aviation     Funds for replacement of magnetometers at           $23,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                               airport passenger screening locations in
                                               commercial service airports.




                                              Page 75                                              GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                                                Appendix IV
                                                Highlights of Current Laws and Regulations
                                                Governing Transportation Security




(Continued From Previous Page)

                                     Modes
Public law – appropriation           impacted    Key provisions                                      Funding appropriated
Consolidated Appropriation       Aviation        Provides for aviation security (screening           $4,516,300,000 (app. FY 2003)
Resolution for 2003, Pub. L. No.                 activities, airport support, and enforcement        including:
108-7, 117 Stat. 11 (2003).                      presence) including:
February 20, 2003                                   additional funding from FAA appropriations for   $144,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                    explosives detections systems
                                                    additional funding for terminal modifications    $265,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                    needed for the installation of EDS equipment
                                                    additional funding for the procurement of        $174, 500,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                    checked baggage EDS equipment
                                     All         Funds administrative, including intelligence,       $308,700,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                 activities of the Transportation Security
                                                 Administration.
                                     All         Enhances maritime and land security including:      $244,800,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                                                                     including:
                                                    provides additional funding for port security    $150,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                    grants
                                                    funds for radiation detection and monitoring     $4,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                    system evaluation and procurement
                                                    funds for the purpose of deploying Operation     $30,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                    Safe Commerce
                                     All         Appropriates funds for research and                 $110, 200,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                 development related to transportation security      including:
                                                 including:
                                                    funds for grants for port security               $10,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
Emergency Wartime                    Aviation    Provides financial assistance to US flag air        $2,395,750,000 of which the first
Supplemental Appropriations                      carriers for expenses and revenue forgone           $100 million is to reimburse
Act for FY 2003, Pub. L. No.                     related to aviation security.                       carriers for strengthening cockpit
108-11, 117 Stat. 559 (2003)                                                                         doors. (app. FY 2003)
                                     Seaport     Appropriates funds for the Coast Guard to           $228,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                 support Operation Liberty Shield.
                                     Aviation    Appropriates additional funds to TSA for the        $235,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                 installation of explosive detection systems at
                                                 airports.
                                     Seaport     Appropriates additional funds to TSA for port       $20,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                 security.
                                     Aviation    Appropriates additional funds to TSA for            $280,000,000 (app. FY 2003)
                                                 passenger screener hiring, training, and related
                                                 costs.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Code.




                                                Page 76                                              GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                                                Appendix IV
                                                Highlights of Current Laws and Regulations
                                                Governing Transportation Security




Table 7: Regulations


                                                    Issuing
Regulationsa                         Modes impacted agency                     Key provisions
Criminal History Records Checks, Aviation                 FAA                  Requires airport operators and aircraft operators to
66 Fed. Reg. 63474 (Dec. 6,                                                    conduct fingerprint-based criminal history records checks
2001).                                                                         (CHRC’s) of individuals with unescorted access authority
Effective December 6, 2001                                                     to secured areas.
Civil Aviation Security Rules, 67    All                  TSA                  Transfers rules governing civil aviation security to TSA.
Fed. Reg. 8340 (Feb. 22, 2002).                                                Provides screener qualifications and training.
Effective February 17, 2002
                                                                               Defines and governs the release of “sensitive security
                                                                               information.”
Security Programs for Aircraft       Aviation             TSA                  Requires aircraft operators of aircraft with a maximum
12,500 Pounds or More, 67 Fed.                                                 takeoff weight of 12,500 lbs. or more to conduct criminal
Reg. 8205 (Feb. 22, 2002).                                                     history records checks on flightcrew members.
Effective June 24, 2002                                                        Requires access to the flight deck of such aircraft be
                                                                               restricted.
Passenger Name Record                Aviation             Customs Service      Requires air carriers, upon request, to electronically
Information Required for                                                       provide U.S. Customs Service with access to Passenger
Passengers on Flights in Foreign                                               Name Record (PNR) information concerning the identity
Air Transportation to or from the                                              and travel plans of passengers for any international flight
United States, 67 Fed. Reg.                                                    to or from the United States.
42710 (June 25, 2002).
Effective June 25, 2002
Picture Identification               Aviation             FAA                  Requires all certified pilots to carry photo identification
Requirements, 67 Fed. Reg.                                                     subject to inspection upon request from the FAA or any
65858 (Oct. 28, 2002).                                                         federal, state, or local law enforcement officer.
Effective October 28, 2002
Discretionary Bridge Candidate       Highways             Federal Highway      Allows discretionary bridge funds to be used for security
Rating Factor, 67 Fed. Reg.                               Administration       improvements on eligible bridges, subject to 23 USC 144
63539 (Oct. 15, 2002).                                                         requirements.
Effective November 14, 2002
Presentation of Vessel Cargo         Seaport              Customs Service      Requires the advance and accurate presentation of
Declaration to Customs Before                                                  certain manifest information prior to lading at the foreign
Cargo Is Laden Aboard Vessel at                                                port, in order to enable Customs to evaluate the risk of
Foreign Port for Transport to the                                              smuggling weapons of mass destruction.
United States, 67 Fed. Reg.
66318 (Oct. 31, 2002).
Effective December 2, 2002.
Aviation Security: Private Charter   Aviation             TSA                  Requires private charter operators using aircraft with a
Security Rules, 67 Fed. Reg.                                                   maximum takeoff weight of at least 100,000 lbs. or which
79881 (Dec. 31, 2002).                                                         can seat at least 61 passengers to ensure that
Effective February 1, 2003                                                     passengers and their carry-on baggage are screened
                                                                               prior to boarding.




                                                Page 77                                                GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                                                 Appendix IV
                                                 Highlights of Current Laws and Regulations
                                                 Governing Transportation Security




(Continued From Previous Page)

                                                    Issuing
Regulationsa                         Modes impacted agency                        Key provisions
Coast Guard Transition to         Seaport                  Coast Guard           Transfers the Coast Guard from the Department of
Department of Homeland                                                           Transportation to the newly created Department of
Security, 68 Fed. Reg. 9533 (Feb.                                                Homeland Security.
28, 2003).
Effective March 1, 2003
Organization and Delegation of       Motor Carrier         Office of the         Transfers authority of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Powers and Duties, Update of                               Secretary,            Administration to determine security risks to the
Secretarial Delegations, 68 Fed.                           DOT                   Transportation Security Administration.
Reg. 10988 (March 7, 2003).
Effective March 7, 2003
Screening of Aliens and Other      Aviation                DOJ                   Prohibits aviation training providers to train aliens or other
Designated Individuals Seeking                                                   designated individuals without prior approval by the
Flight Training, 68 Fed. Reg. 7313                                               Attorney General.
(Feb. 13, 2003).
Effective March 17, 2003
Security Requirements for Motor      Motor Carrier         Federal Motor Carrier Transfers rulemaking authority addressing the security of
Carriers Transporting Hazardous                            Safety Administration motor carrier shipments of hazardous materials to the
Materials, 68 Fed. Reg. 13250                              (FMCSA)               Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
(March 19, 2003).                                                                from the FMCSA.
Effective March 19, 2003
Hazardous Materials: Security        All                   RSPA                  Requires shippers and carriers of certain highly
Requirements for Offerors and                                                    hazardous materials to develop and implement security
Transporters of Hazardous                                                        plans.
Materials, 68 Fed. Reg. 14510                                                    Requires all shippers and carriers of hazardous materials
(March 25, 2003).                                                                to include a security component in their employee
Effective March 25, 2003                                                         training programs.
Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports, Seaport             Coast Guard           Makes permanent changes in notification of arrival and
68 Fed. Reg. 9537 (Feb. 28,                                                      departure requirements to ensure public safety and
2003)                                                                            security, including requiring electronic submission of
Effective April 1, 2003.                                                         cargo manifest information to the U.S. Customs Service,
                                                                                 and requiring additional crew and passenger information.
Organization and Delegation of    Seaport                  Office of the         Transfers authority to the Maritime Administrator to
Powers and Duties; Delegation to                           Secretary, DOT        develop standards and curriculum for the training and
the Administrator, Maritime                                                      certification of maritime security professionals.
Administrator, 68 Fed. Reg. 16215
(April 3, 2003).
Effective April 3, 2003




                                                 Page 78                                                  GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                                                             Appendix IV
                                                             Highlights of Current Laws and Regulations
                                                             Governing Transportation Security




(Continued From Previous Page)

                                                                 Issuing
Regulationsa                                      Modes impacted agency                       Key provisions
Implementation of the Safe                        All                  ATF                    Requires applicants for licenses and permits to provide
Explosives Act, 68 Fed. Reg.                                                                  with the application the names and appropriate
13768 (March 20, 2003).                                                                       identifying information regarding employees authorized to
Effective May 24, 2003                                                                        possess explosive materials.
                                                                                              Requires applicants for licenses and permits to provide
Interim Final Rule                                                                            with the application fingerprints and photographs of
                                                                                              “responsible persons” (for example, site managers, sole
                                                                                              proprietors, partners, corporate officers and directors,
                                                                                              and majority shareholders).
                                                                                              Requires the ATF to conduct background checks on
                                                                                              responsible persons and employees authorized to
                                                                                              possess explosive materials.

Limitations on the Issuance of                    Motor Carrier        FMCSA                  Prohibits States from issuing, renewing, transferring, or
Commercial Driver's Licenses                                                                  upgrading a commercial driver’s license (CDL) with a
with a Hazardous Materials                                                                    hazardous material endorsement unless TSA has
Endorsement, 68 Fed. Reg.                                                                     conducted a background check of the applicant, including
23844 (May 5, 2003).                                                                          administering a hazardous materials knowledge test.
Effective May 5, 2003

Interim Final Rule
Hazardous Materials: Enhancing                    Motor Carrier,       RSPA                   Requires shippers and transporters to comply with
Hazardous Materials                               Seaport                                     Federal security regulations that apply to motor carrier
Transportation Security 68 Fed.                                                               and vessel transportation
Reg. 23832 (May 5, 2003)                                                                      Requires applicants for exemptions from the Hazardous
Effective May 5, 2003                                                                         Materials Regulations compliance with applicable
                                                                                              Federal transportation security laws and regulations.
Interim Final Rule
Security Threat Assessment for                    Motor Carrier        TSA                    Establishes security threat assessment standards for
Individuals Applying for a                                                                    determining whether an individual poses a security threat
Hazardous Materials                                                                           warranting denial of a hazardous materials endorsement
Endorsement for a Commercial                                                                  for a CDL. Also established appeals and waiver
Drivers License 68 Fed. Reg.                                                                  procedures.
23852 (May 5, 2003)
Effective May 5, 2003

Interim Final Rule
Source: GAO analysis of Code of Federal Regulations.
                                                             a
                                                             All regulations listed are final rules unless otherwise noted.




                                                             Page 79                                                  GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix V

Organizational Chart of the Transportation
Security Administration                                                                                                                                                     Appen
                                                                                                                                                                                V
                                                                                                                                                                                di
                                                                                                                                                                                x




                                                                     Administrator

                                                                 Deputy Administrator                                               Chief Counsel
                                 Task Forces                                                                  Chief of Staff
                                                                                                                                    Strategic Management &
                                                                                                                                       Analysis
                                   ONRA
                                                                                                                                    Security & Law Enforcement
                                  Transition
                                                                                                                                       Liaison
                                                                                                                                    Communication & Public
                                                                                                                                       Information
                                                                                                                                    Legislative Affairs
                                               Transportation                                                                       Civil Rights
                                               Security Policy                                                                      Ombudsmen
                                                                                                                                    Executive Secretariat




     Operations Directorate                International                                                       Support Systems Directorate Associate
     Associate Administrator/
                                                                                                                Administrator/ Chief Support Systems
     Chief Operating Officer
                                                                                                                   Officer Human Capital Officer
                                           Crisis Management




   Aviation      Maritime and     Intelligence       Operation             Human          Training &     Information       Security        Internal       Finance and
  Operations        Land                              Policy              Resources        Quality       Technology       Technology      Affairs and        Admin.
                   Security                                                              Performance                                       Program
  Assistant                        Assistant         Assistant            Assistant                        Assistant       Assistant       Reviews          Assistant
 Administrator    Assistant       Administrator     Administrator        Administrator    Assistant      Administrator/   Administrator                   Administrator/
                 Administrator                                                           Administrator       Chief                         Assistant      Chief Financial
                                                                                                          Information                     Administrator       Officer
                                                                                                             Officer

Source: TSA.




                                                           Page 80                                                             GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Appendix VI

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments                                                         AppenV
                                                                                                    d
                                                                                                    xiI




GAO Contact       Cathleen Berrick, (202) 512-8777
                  Susan Fleming, (202) 512-4431
                  Peter Guerrero, (202) 512-2834



Acknowledgments   In addition to those named above, Steven Calvo, Nikki Clowers, Michelle
                  Dresben, Glenn Dubin, Scott Farrow, Libby Halperin, David Hooper,
                  Hiroshi Ishikawa, Ray Sendejas, and Glen Trochelman made key
                  contributions to this report.




                  Page 81                                     GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Related GAO Products



Transportation         Transportation Security Research: Coordination Needed in Selecting and
                       Implementing Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessments, GAO-03-502
Security Reports and   (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003).
Testimonies
                       Coast Guard: Challenges during the Transition to the Department of
                       Homeland Security, GAO-03-594T (Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2003).

                       Transportation Security: Post-September 11th Initiatives and Long-Term
                       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)

                       Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
                       Transportation, GAO-03-108 (Washington, D.C.: January 1, 2003)

                       High Risk Series: Protecting Information Systems Supporting the
                       Federal Government and the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure, GAO-03-121
                       (Washington, D.C.: January 1, 2003).

                       Aviation Safety: Undeclared Air Shipments of Dangerous Goods and
                       DOT’s Enforcement Approach, GAO-03-22 (Washington, D.C.: January 10,
                       2003).

                       Aviation Security: Vulnerabilities and Potential Improvements for the
                       Air Cargo System, GAO-03-344 (Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2002).

                       Mass Transit: Federal Action Could Help Transit Agencies Address
                       Security Challenges, GAO-03-263 (Washington, D.C.: December 13, 2002).

                       Aviation Security: Registered Traveler Program Policy and
                       Implementation Issues, GAO-03-253 (Washington, D.C.: November 22,
                       2002).

                       Computer Security: Progress Made, But Critical Federal Operations and
                       Assets Remain at Risk, GAO-03-303T (Washington, D.C.: November 19,
                       2002).




                       Page 82                                     GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Related GAO Products




Container Security: Current Efforts to Detect Nuclear Materials, New
Initiatives, and Challenges, GAO-03-297T (Washington, D.C.: November
18, 2002).

Coast Guard: Strategy Needed for Setting and Monitoring Levels of Effort
for All Missions, GAO-03-155 (Washington, D.C.: November 12, 2002).

Mass Transit: Challenges in Securing Transit Systems, GAO-02-1075T
(Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2002).

Pipeline Safety and Security: Improved Workforce Planning and
Communication Needed, GAO-02-785 (Washington, D.C.: August 26, 2002).

Port Security: Nation Faces Formidable Challenges in Making New
Initiatives Successful, GAO-02-993T (Washington, D.C.: August 5, 2002).

Aviation Security: Transportation Security Administration Faces
Immediate and Long-Term Challenges, GAO-02-971T (Washington, D.C.:
July 25, 2002).

Critical infrastructure Protection: Significant Challenges Need to Be
Addressed, GAO-02-961T (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2002).

Combating Terrorism: Preliminary Observations on Weaknesses in Force
Protection for DOD Deployments Through Domestic Seaports, GAO-02-
955TNI (Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2002). (Not for Public Dissemination)

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)

Coast Guard: Budget and Management Challenges for 2003 and Beyond,
GAO-02-538T (Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2002).

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)




Page 83                                     GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
                     Related GAO Products




                     Aviation Security: Information on the Nation’s Air Transportation
                     System Vulnerabilities, GAO-01-1174T (Washington, D.C.: September 26,
                     2001). (Not for Public Dissemination)

                     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 Illustrate Severe Weaknesses in
                     Aviation Security, GAO-01-1166T (Washington, D.C.: September 20, 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).



Terrorism and Risk   Homeland Security: Information Sharing Responsibilities, Challenges,
                     and Key Management Issues, GAO-03-715T (Washington, D.C.: May 8,
Management           2003).

                     Transportation Security Administration: Actions and Plans to Build a
                     Results-Oriented Culture, GAO-03-190 (Washington, D.C.: January 17,
                     2003).

                     Homeland Security: Management Challenges Facing Federal Leadership,
                     GAO-03-260 (Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2002).

                     Homeland Security: Information Technology Funding and Associated
                     Management Issues, GAO-03-250 (Washington, D.C.: December 13, 2002).

                     Homeland Security: Information Sharing Activities Face Continued
                     Management Challenges, GAO-02-1122T (Washington, D.C.: October 1,
                     2002).

                     National Preparedness: Technology and Information Sharing Challenges,
                     GAO-02-1048R (Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2002).




                     Page 84                                     GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
Related GAO Products




Homeland Security: Effective Intergovernmental Coordination Is Key to
Success, GAO-02-1013T (Washington, D.C.: August 23, 2002).

Critical Infrastructure Protection: Federal Efforts Require a More
Coordinated and Comprehensive Approach for Protecting Information
Systems, GAO-02-474 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2002).

Critical Infrastructure Protection: Significant Homeland Security
Challenges Need to Be Addressed, GAO-02-918T (Washington, D.C.: July 9,
2002).

Homeland Security: Intergovernmental Coordination and Partnership
Will Be Critical to Success, GAO-02-901T (Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002).

Homeland Security: New Department Could Improve Coordination but
May Complicate Priority Setting, GAO-02-893T (Washington, D.C.: June
28, 2002).

National Preparedness: Integrating New and Existing Technology and
Information Sharing into an Effective Homeland Security Strategy,
GAO-02-811T (Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2002).

Homeland Security: Responsibility and Accountability for Achieving
National Goals, GAO-02-627T (Washington, D.C.: April 11, 2002).

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).

Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental Cooperation in the
Development of a National Strategy to Enhance State and Local
Preparedness, GAO-02-550T (Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2002).

Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships Through a National
Preparedness Strategy, GAO-02-549T (Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2002).

Combating Terrorism: Critical Components of a National Strategy to
Enhance State and Local Preparedness, GAO-02-548T (Washington, D.C.:
March 25, 2002).




Page 85                                      GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
           Related GAO Products




           Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental Partnership in a National
           Strategy to Enhance State and Local Preparedness, GAO-02-547T
           (Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2002).

           Homeland Security: Progress Made; More Direction and Partnership
           Sought, GAO-02-490T (Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2002).

           Combating Terrorism: Key Aspects of a National Strategy to Enhance
           State and Local Preparedness, GAO-02-473T (Washington, D.C.: March 1,
           2002).

           Homeland Security: Challenges and Strategies in Addressing Short- and
           Long-Term National Needs, GAO-02-160T (Washington, D.C.: November 7,
           2001).

           Homeland Security: A Risk Management Approach Can Guide
           Preparedness Efforts, GAO-02-208T (Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2001).

           Combating Terrorism: Considerations for Investing Resources in
           Chemical and Biological Preparedness, GAO-02-162T (Washington, D.C.:
           October 17, 2001).

           Information Sharing: Practices That Can Benefit Critical Infrastructure
           Protection, GAO-02-24 (Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001).

           Homeland Security: Key Elements of a Risk Management Approach,
           GAO-02-150T (Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2001).

           Chemical and Biological Defense: Improved Risk Assessment and
           Inventory Management Are Needed, GAO-01-667 (Washington, D.C.:
           September 28, 2001).

           Critical Infrastructure Protection: Significant Challenges in
           Safeguarding Government and Privately Controlled Systems from
           Computer-Based Attacks, GAO-01-1168T (Washington, D.C.: September 26,
           2001).

           Homeland Security: A Framework for Addressing the Nation’s Efforts,
           GAO-01-1158T (Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2001).

           Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related
           Recommendations, GAO-01-822 (Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2001).



(545030)   Page 86                                    GAO-03-843 Transportation Security
GAO’s Mission            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.


Obtaining Copies of      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 full-
GAO Reports and          text 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
Testimony                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.


Order by Mail or Phone   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


To Report Fraud,         Contact:
                         Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs         Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470



Public Affairs           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
United States                  Presorted Standard
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. GI00
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested