U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–292 PDF 2017

CHECKPOINT OF THE FUTURE: EVALUATING TSA’S 

INNOVATION TASK FORCE INITIATIVE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

PROTECTIVE SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 27, 2017 

Serial No. 115–14 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 


Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

WILL HURD, Texas 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York 

J. LUIS CORREA, California 

VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, California 

BRENDAN P. SHIELDS, Staff Director 

KATHLEEN CROOKS FLYNN, Deputy General Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

HOPE GOINS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PROTECTIVE SECURITY 

JOHN KATKO, New York, Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas (ex officio) 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 

KRISTA P. HARVEY, Subcommittee Staff Director 

CEDRIC C. HAYNES, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable John Katko, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 4 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

WITNESSES

Mr. Steve Karoly, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Requirements 

and Capabilities Analysis, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

Mr. Roosevelt Council Jr., General Manager, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport, Department of Aviation, City of Atlanta, Georgia: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

Ms. Jeanne M. Olivier, A.A.E., Assistant Director, Aviation Security and 

Technology, Security Operations and Programs Department, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairman John Katko for Steve Karoly .................................... 35 

Questions From Ranking Member Watson Coleman for Steve Karoly ............... 36 

Questions From Chairman John Katko for Roosevelt Council, Jr. ..................... 37 

Questions From Chairman Michael T. McCaul for Jeanne M. Olivier ............... 38 

(1) 

CHECKPOINT OF THE FUTURE: EVALUATING 

TSA’S INNOVATION TASK FORCE INITIATIVE 

Thursday, April 27, 2017 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND

PROTECTIVE SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in room 

HVC–210, Capitol Visitors Center, Hon. John Katko (Chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Katko, Rogers, Higgins, Fitzpatrick, 

Watson Coleman, and Payne. 

Mr. KATKO. The Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee 

on Transportation and Protective Security will come to order. 

Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge a couple of distinguished guests here today: Mr. Costello Coleman and Mr. Anthony 

Devone. Both of them are students from Friendship Collegiate 

Academy here in the District of Columbia, and one of them I am 

trying to get to go to Syracuse University, so we will have to see 

how that goes. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to examine the implementation of the Transportation Security Administration’s Administrative 

Task Force initiative. In addition to TSA, we will also hear from 

airport stakeholders that have partnered with the task force. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

I would like to welcome everyone to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security’s hearing to examine the state of 

TSA’s Innovative Task Force initiative. Many of us here are all too 

familiar with the struggles TSA has faced over its 15-year history 

to field cutting-edge technology and security solutions in a timely 

manner to meet the ever-evolving threat landscape. 

A year ago, then-Administrator Neffenger launched the Innovative Task Force initiative in an effort to inculcate a culture of innovation into how the organization thinks about meeting the challenges of current and evolving threats. I commend the former administrator for starting this critical effort, and I support the important mission of this initiative. 

However, it is the committee’s job to make sure that the task 

force is meeting its stated goals and has the resources it needs. 

With effective oversight we can all work together to ensure that the 

positive momentum created by the Innovative Task Force initiative, or ITF, continues and that the lessons learned are not conVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17TP0427\17TP0427.TXT HEATH
2 

fined to a vacuum, but instead both support and inform the broader mission and goals of the TSA as a whole. 

What is most important is that TSA leverages the work of this 

initiative to guarantee to the American people that future procurement decisions are a sound investment of taxpayer dollars and that 

the technology TSA procures is capable of detecting the latest 

threat. 

While the Federal Government is ultimately responsible for delivering on the secure freedom of movement throughout the Nation’s transportation systems, the effectiveness of the security 

framework surrounding that movement hinges on the private sector’s commitment to innovation and continuous development of the 

new security technologies to screen millions of passengers and bags 

every day. 

However, quality innovation comes with a hefty price tag, and we 

cannot reasonably expect the private sector to spend millions of 

dollars in the research and development of new and emerging technologies without greater transparency and communication from 

both TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. 

Currently, TSA is focusing on deploying automated screening 

lanes across 21 of the Nation’s largest airports. Automated screening lanes should help reduce passenger queues at the checkpoint. 

As we have seen with recent attacks around the world, terrorists 

are increasingly targeting public spaces with large crowds of people 

to inflict the maximum number of casualties, and anything we can 

do to reduce that target is a good thing. Thus, the automated 

screening lanes can serve to enhance the passenger experience, 

ease the burden on TSOs, and eliminate security vulnerabilities. 

When thinking about how to build the checkpoint of the future, 

TSA should strive to meet all of these goals when acquiring new 

technology and proposing new solutions. However, to accomplish 

this we need to reach far beyond automated screening lanes. 

This is why I am pleased that the ITF has plans to pilot C.T. Xrays at passenger checkpoints and venture into biometric authentication technology and innovations in passenger communication all 

before the end of the summer travel season. That is a laudable 

goal. 

I am also optimistic about TSA’s efforts to connect industry with 

airport operators across the country to facilitate innovation in other 

aspects of transportation security outside the checkpoint, such as 

employee screening and biometric bag drop. However, we can and 

should be doing more. 

All of these demonstrations and pilots will be wasted if they fail 

to inform the administration’s Strategic Five-Year Technology Investment Plan or enhance TSA’s somewhat troubled procurement 

process. I hope when the next administrator is appointed he or she 

will continue to build on the progress of the task force and better 

integrate its work across TSA and DHS as a whole to leverage its 

successes. 

I believe that we are behind the curve concerning our technology 

innovation, particularly with respect to what is going on in Europe 

in some places, and the traveler experience at our Nation’s airports. Many foreign airports have implemented improved security 

scanners, better biometric capabilities, and smarter systems for 

3 

passenger queuing to meet the emerging threats in a timely manner. 

I look forward to hearing the perspectives of our witnesses on 

how TSA and its industry partners are working together to bring 

more innovative solutions to transportation security and what more 

needs to be done to meet this goal. I encourage all of the witnesses 

today to be candid about how the scope of this initiative can be expanded. 

It is not often when we ask these questions that we are going 

to today: What else could you use to make your job better? We are 

going—we are going to be asking questions like that because we 

want to know. We want to know how DHS and TSA can better support this task force. 

With that, I am pleased to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

subcommittee, my friend and the gentlelady from New Jersey, Mrs. 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, for her opening statement. 

[The statement of Chairman Katko follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN KATKO

APRIL 27, 2017 

I would like to welcome everyone to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security’s hearing to examine the state of TSA’s Innovation Task Force initiative. Many of us here are all too familiar with the struggles TSA has faced over 

its 15-year history to field cutting-edge technology and security solutions to meet the 

ever-evolving threat landscape. 

A year ago, then-Administrator Neffenger launched the Innovation Task Force initiative in an effort to inculcate a culture of innovation into how the organization 

thinks about meeting the challenges of current and evolving threats. I commend the 

former administrator for starting this critical effort, and I support the important 

mission of this initiative. 

However, it is this committee’s job to make sure that this task force is meeting 

its stated goals, and has the resources it needs. With effective oversight, we can all 

work together to ensure that the positive momentum created by the Innovation 

Task Force initiative continues and that the lessons learned are not confined to a 

vacuum, but instead both support and inform the broader mission and goals of TSA 

as a whole. What is most important is that TSA leverages the work of this initiative 

to guarantee to the American people that future procurement decisions are a sound 

investment of taxpayer dollars and that the technology TSA procures is capable of 

detecting the latest threat. 

While the Federal Government is ultimately responsible for delivering on the secure freedom of movement throughout the Nation’s transportation systems, the effectiveness of the security framework surrounding that movement hinges on the private sector’s commitment to innovation and continuous development of new security 

technologies to screen millions of passengers and bags every day. 

However, quality innovation comes with a hefty price tag, and we cannot reasonably expect the private sector to spend millions of dollars in the research and development of new and emerging technologies without greater transparency and communication from both TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. 

Currently, TSA is focusing on deploying Automated Screening Lanes, across 21 

of the Nation’s largest airports. Automated Screening Lanes should help to reduce 

passenger queues at the checkpoint. As we have seen with recent attacks around 

the world, terrorists are increasingly targeting public spaces with large crowds of 

people to inflict the maximum number of casualties. 

Thus, the Automated Screening Lanes can serve to enhance the passenger experience, ease the burden on TSOs, and eliminate security vulnerabilities. When thinking about how to build the checkpoint of the future, TSA should strive to meet all 

three of these goals when acquiring new technology and proposing new solutions. 

However, to accomplish this we need to reach far beyond Automated Screening 

Lanes. This is why I am pleased that the ITF has plans to pilot CT X-rays at passenger checkpoints, biometric authentication technology, and innovations in passenger communication all before the end of the summer travel season. 

4 

I am also optimistic about TSA’s efforts to connect industry with airport operators 

across the country to facilitate innovation in other aspects of transportation security 

outside the checkpoint—such as employee screening and biometric bag drop. However, we can and should be doing more. 

All of these demonstrations and pilots will be wasted effort if they fail to inform 

the administration’s Strategic Five-Year Technology Investment Plan or enhance 

TSA’s broken procurement process. I hope when the next administrator is appointed, he or she will continue to build on the progress of this task force, and better integrate its work across TSA and DHS as a whole to leverage its successes. 

I believe that we are behind the curve concerning our technology innovation and 

the traveler experience at our Nation’s airports. Many foreign airports have implemented improved security scanners, better biometric capabilities, and smarter systems for passenger queuing to meet the emerging threats of today. 

I look forward to hearing the perspectives of our witnesses on how TSA and its 

industry partners are working together to bring more innovative solutions to transportation security, and what more needs to be done to meet this goal. 

I encourage all of the witnesses today to be candid about how the scope of this 

initiative can be expanded, and how DHS and TSA can better support this task 

force. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. 

I am particularly excited to see Ms. Olivier here, who is representing the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and to 

discuss the progress that has been made at the Newark Airport 

and is soon to be made at JFK Airport at improving passenger 

screening. 

It was a pleasure to meet with Mr. Karoly and Mr. Council as 

we prepared for this meeting today. 

I, along with millions of people, rely on the Port Authority services, and I am especially pleased that you are here as a leader in 

transforming passenger screening services. TSA’s role in protecting 

passengers comes with a unique set of challenges. 

Among these challenges is responding to the ever-evolving threat 

environment where terrorist groups innovate when it comes to 

bomb-making. This homeland security issue demands that TSA not 

only assess whether its current security protocols can detect such 

threats, but also act swiftly to identify, test, and put in place technologies and processes to address such threats. 

TSA is charged with carrying out this critical homeland security 

responsibility in an environment that often does not come with 

long-term fiscal planning resources. When TSA launched the Innovation Task Force in 2016 I was pleased to see TSA embrace direct 

collaboration with aviation security stakeholders in a more formal 

dialog to help drive the movement of the best ideas from paper to 

the airport checkpoint. 

Since that time, aviation security stakeholders have provided a 

range of feedback about the task force, but all agreed that it has 

been a helpful forum for their efforts to innovate passenger security screening. Though the impact of the task force is limited today, 

with the demonstrations underway at a handful of airports, it 

seems well-positioned to make great strides in improving passenger 

security screening, and I applaud all involved for their efforts. 

Currently, there are 48 automated screening lanes in operation 

around the country, with 17 of those in Newark Liberty International and 19 in Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. I am pleased that in the coming months TSA plans to put 

more automated screening lanes in more airports around the counVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17TP0427\17TP0427.TXT HEATH
5 

try and that at the same time TSA is pursuing complementary initiatives such as demonstrations of biometric authentication technology, also known as BAT, and computed tomography. 

The Transportation Security Administration’s Innovation Task 

Force is a great platform for TSA to support and engage with 

stakeholders committed to innovating the passenger screening 

service. Going forward, TSA needs to be more strategic and transparent about investments in innovation and allocate adequate resources for such effort. 

For instance, it would be good to know how the task force initiatives line up with TSA’s Five-Year Technology Investment Plan. To 

date, much of the cost of the development technology for the demonstrations has been borne by the private-sector stakeholders, as 

was stated by the Chairman; and it will be important to know if 

going forward TSA plans to make investments in technologies that 

it develops through the task force. 

I look forward to hearing today how Congress can be more helpful in ensuring that the task force’s efforts can be sustained and 

improved to deliver more effective and efficient passenger screening 

experience to the flying public. 

Once again, I thank you all for being here and for sharing your 

testimony with us. 

I yield back the balance of my time to the Chairman. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Mrs. Watson Coleman. 

Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

APRIL 27, 2017 

In March 2016, TSA launched the Innovation Task Force as a platform for collaboration between TSA, airports, air carriers, and security technology stakeholders 

in furtherance of the development and integration of innovative security capabilities 

into our Nation’s airports. 

Since the launch of the Task Force, we have heard from stakeholders about the 

progress that has been made in passenger screening. As a result of Task Force efforts, there are a number of technology demonstrations in the cue to be rolled out 

in the airport environment. These innovative systems are geared at making TSA’s 

security screening more efficient and effective. 

In preparation for this hearing, one thing has become apparent to me—the private 

sector has provided a great deal of leadership in passenger screening initiatives. I 

applaud the efforts of the airlines, the airports, vendors who have overwhelmingly 

embraced this opportunity to improve passengers’ screening experience, while enhancing airport security. 

It has also become clear to me that this Task Force was something that was needed for a very long time and I applaud former—TSA administrator John Neffenger 

for recognizing the need and putting this initiative is in place. 

I also want to recognize Dr. Huban Gowadia who—since January, has overseen 

TSA in an acting capacity and has shown great commitment to the Task Force. It 

is troubling that we are nearly 100 days into the Trump administration and, as with 

so many other critical positions, the President has failed to nominate a TSA administrator. 

Turning back to the subject at hand, I look forward to learning more about how 

the Task Force has been functioning, how stakeholders have been able to build upon 

their working relationships with TSA and each other to move forward with innovative passenger screening technologies as well as how Congress can support these efforts. 

I look forward to hearing today about ways Congress can be a partner in helping 

the Innovation Task Force achieve its goals. 

6 

Mr. KATKO. We are very pleased to have a distinguished panel 

here to testify before us today on this very important topic. 

Our first witness, Mr. Steve Karoly, has never testified before 

Congress, and I know how excited he is to do so, right? 

Mr. KAROLY. Absolutely. 

Mr. KATKO. He serves as the acting assistant administrator for 

TSA’s Office of Requirements and Capabilities Analysis. 

Thank you for being here, sir. 

Mr. Karoly has been with TSA since 2014, prior to which he 

served almost 30 years as a captain in the U.S. Navy and Naval 

Reserve. 

We thank you for your on-going service to our country. 

I would also like to recognize Mr. Karoly’s daughter, Olivia— 

stand up, Olivia; say hello, all right—who is in the audience today. 

She is in the eighth grade and accompanying her father for Bring 

Your Children to Work Day at TSA. 

Now, this is a pretty interesting day to come to work with your 

dad. Maybe one day I will be introducing Olivia to testify before 

the committee herself. 

Our second witness, Mr. Roosevelt Council, Jr., who was named 

the general manager of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International 

Airport in January 2017. Prior to this role, Mr. Council served as 

deputy general manager and chief financial officer for the airport. 

He is a graduate of Memphis State University, the Harvard Executive Leadership Program, and the Georgia Leadership Council. 

I have spoken with Mr. Council before and he is truly an impressive gentleman. 

Our third witness is Ms. Jeanne Olivier, the assistant director 

for aviation security and technology at the Port Authority of New 

York and New Jersey. Ms. Olivier has worked with the Port Authority for over 30 years and airport operational management positions at JFK International, LaGuardia, Newark Liberty International, and Teterboro Airports. She has managed the Central 

Aviation Security Program since the attacks on the World Trade 

Center in 2001, including oversight of security and technology for 

the Port Authority’s five airports. 

I would like to thank all of you for being here today, and I look 

forward to your testimony. 

I now recognize Mr. Steve Karoly for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE KAROLY, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF REQUIREMENTS AND CAPABILITIES 

ANALYSIS, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. KAROLY. Thank you, Chairman Katko. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson 

Coleman, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 

Transportation Security Administration’s Innovation Task Force, or 

ITF, and its role in fulfilling our mission to protect the Nation’s 

transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people 

and commerce. It is truly an honor and privilege to be here. 

7 

Chairman Katko, I thank you for recognizing my daughter. Although this is my first time to testify, I am probably more concerned about what she thinks at the end of this. 

I appreciate—— 

Mr. KATKO. She is a teenager, so don’t get too optimistic. 

Mr. KAROLY. I appreciate the committee’s interest in and support 

of this initiative, including visits by you and your staff to the TSA 

Systems Integration Facility and airports deploying ITF technologies, as well as language enacted last year directing TSA to 

pursue innovative technology solutions. I also appreciate the collaboration of our airport, air carrier, and industry partners, including my colleagues here today, to demonstrate emerging technologies at our Nation’s airports. 

TSA is taking a transformative new approach to technology with 

the Innovation Task Force. The ITF allows vendors to gather live 

stream-of-commerce data in the field in order to inform and refine 

their technology prior to entering the formal acquisition process. 

This ensures that better product enters formal testing while allowing TSA to gain immediate benefits. 

TSA laid out a plan to improve our technology capabilities in the 

Strategic Five-Year Technology Investment Plan for Aviation Security. This plan acknowledges the challenges in integrating new 

technologies into the operational environment prior to formal field 

testing and makes the commitment to increase stakeholder access 

to the operating environments. This laid the foundation for the Innovation Task Force, which TSA stood up in the spring of 2016. 

In 9 short weeks we were able to deploy our first innovative solution, the automated screening lanes, or ASLs, at Hartsfield-Jackson 

Atlanta International Airport, in partnership with Delta Air Lines 

and with the support of our Atlanta Airport partners. These ASLs 

augment existing X-ray screening technology for carry-on baggage 

and include multiple divestiture stations, enhanced bin tracking 

and data capabilities, and automated bin returns. 

Taking into account recent terror attacks on public airport areas, 

ASLs help TSA address concerns regarding crowding in public 

areas. In September 2016 the Department of Homeland Security 

approved an urgent operational need justification authorizing the 

deployment of up to 220 ASLs at 21 specified airports by January 

31, 2018. This deployment is, of course, dependent upon TSA’s establishing partnerships with stakeholders for additional lane deployments. 

Following the demonstrated success in Atlanta and DHS approval, TSA partnered with additional airlines and airports to deploy ASLs. Today we have 51 ASLs in operation at four airports 

across the country. 

Two of our largest ASL deployments include 22 lanes at 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and 17 lanes at 

Newark Liberty International Airport. Our most recent deployment 

was three lanes in Atlanta, which went live yesterday. 

Additional ASLs are operational at Los Angeles and Chicago 

O’Hare International Airports. 

While ASLs were our first ITF demonstration to be deployed, 

they will not be our last. Future ITF technologies include using 

8 

computed tomography at the checkpoint, traditionally a technology 

used for checked baggage, to improve carry-on baggage detection. 

ITF’s biometric authentication technology, or BAT, proof of concept uses fingerprint scanning to verify TSA PreCheck passenger 

identities. Eventually, BAT could automate the ticket document 

checker process by electronically verifying passenger identity and 

secure flight status. 

Additionally, in an effort to improve our understanding of existing market capabilities, TSA issued its first innovation-related 

broad agency announcement in May 2016. We received 81 responses and completed over 200 technical reviews; 52 percent of 

those solutions submitted had not been previously deployed domestically or internationally. 

TSA selected eight of these technologies to potentially join the 

portfolio of ITF solutions, and planning activities for these demonstrations are underway. 

TSA plans to release the second innovation-related BAA in May 

2017. 

To be clear, the ITF does not provide a shortcut around traditional acquisition processes. While data gathered from ITF demonstrations may be used to inform manufacturers in the design and 

preparation of their prototype units for testing at DHS and TSA, 

these technologies still need to go through the rigors of the acquisition process before becoming a program of record. 

I would like to conclude by offering you all the opportunity to 

visit the TSA Systems Integration Facility, located nearby Ronald 

Reagan Washington National Airport, to see first-hand these ITF 

technologies in action. I would also like to thank the subcommittee 

for its continued support of the ITF and our airport, airline, and 

industry partners whose support make this endeavor possible. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Karoly follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE KAROLY

APRIL 27, 2017 

Good morning, Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Innovation Task Force (ITF) and its role in fulfilling our mission to protect the Nation’s 

transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. I 

appreciate the committee’s interest in and support of this initiative as we work with 

our airport, air carrier, and other industry partners to demonstrate emerging technologies at our Nation’s airports. 

BACKGROUND

TSA prioritizes its technology investments based on the latest intelligence concerning terrorist capabilities and intent. This is accomplished by performing risk 

analyses which serve as the foundation for deriving operational needs and requirements. These analyses take into consideration potential threats, vulnerabilities to 

those threats given current system capabilities, and the consequences in the event 

of an attack. To meet the challenges posed by these risk factors, TSA and industry 

partners must continually adapt and evolve screening technologies, processes, and 

systems. 

TSA laid out a plan to improve our technology capabilities in the Strategic FiveYear Technology Investment Plan for Aviation Security (the Plan), mandated under 

the Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act (Pub. L. 113–245). In the Plan, 

9 

initially released in August 2015, TSA laid the foundation for what would become 

the ITF. One of TSA’s five focus areas in the Plan includes ‘‘Increasing Transparency in Engagement with Stakeholders to Enable Innovation.’’ The Plan acknowledges that one of the difficulties with the development and integration of new 

capabilities is the integration of these capabilities into TSA’s operational environment, given the difficulties of simulating the operational environment prior to formal testing in the field. In addition, the Plan provides a commitment to increase 

stakeholder access to the operating environments these capabilities are designed to 

improve or enhance. To deliver on this commitment, TSA established the ITF in the 

spring of 2016. 

TSA launched the ITF to demonstrate emerging capabilities in the passenger 

screening checkpoint and the checked baggage screening areas and charged the 

agency to re-envision the entire transportation security system as an integrated 

whole; increasing security effectiveness, while reducing friction to the traveler. ITF 

accomplishes this through the establishment of innovation sites. An innovation site 

is a designated airport where TSA is actively partnering with the airport authority 

and/or air carrier(s) to demonstrate one or more prototype technology, process, or 

staffing solutions. The ITF has led to the deployment of Automated Screening Lanes 

(ASLs) and is planning new projects ranging from aesthetic improvements to new 

detection technologies. 

SITE SELECTION PROCESS

TSA selects innovation sites based on several criteria to ensure TSA resources are 

utilized efficiently, and in compliance with the requirements of the FAA Extension, 

Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114–190). Under our current methodology, 

TSA selects Category X airports where it will establish innovation sites based on 

the following site-selection criteria: 

• Ability to begin the reconfiguration and installation of security systems expeditiously; 

• Ability to share costs through Federal funding, airport funding, or otherwise; 

• Infrastructure, and space needed to reduce vulnerabilities and reconfigure existing security systems, and not negatively impact current screening capacity; 

• Impact to security effectiveness and efficiency, including consideration of detection capabilities; and 

• Ability of operational staff and stakeholders to support the initiative. 

Sites are continually assessed and may be rotated to minimize resource impacts 

and secure a representative sample of the field environment. 

AUTOMATED SCREENING LANES

ITF’s first innovation solution was Automated Screening Lanes (ASLs) demonstrated at Atlanta-Hartsfield Jackson Airport (ATL). In less than 9 weeks, the 

ITF established ATL as an innovation site and demonstrated ASLs in partnership 

with Delta Air Lines. ASLs augment existing X-ray screening technology for carryon baggage and include multiple divestiture stations, enhanced bin tracking and 

data capabilities, and automated bin returns. TSA, airports, airlines, vendors, and 

travelers have recognized ASLs as ground-breaking in advancing security effectiveness, increasing throughput, and improving the passenger experience. 

Taking into account the recent terror attacks on public airport areas that took 

place at Brussels, Los Angeles, and Fort Lauderdale, ASLs provide TSA the capability to address long-held concerns regarding crowding in the public areas. ASLs 

assist in the security of public areas by increasing checkpoint throughput and reducing the number of individuals waiting in line. In September 2016, the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) approved an Urgent Operational Need (UON) justification which authorizes the deployment of up to 220 ASLs at 21 specified airports by 

January 31, 2018. While the UON authorizes 220 ASLs, deployment at this scale 

is contingent upon TSA establishing partnerships with stakeholders for additional 

lane deployments. 

After the demonstrated success of the ASLs in Atlanta and after the DHS approval of the UON, TSA partnered with additional airlines and airports to deploy 

the capability at 25 lanes at 4 airports by the close of calendar year 2016. Since 

the start of 2017, we have deployed 23 additional ASLs at these airports, bringing 

the total to 48. TSA and our partners deployed 17 of these lanes earlier this month 

at Newark Liberty International Airport in what was our largest single ASL deployment to date. In addition to Atlanta-Hartsfield and Newark, ASL’s are operational 

at, Los Angeles, and Chicago-O’Hare International Airports. These efforts are paying measurable dividends in effectiveness, efficiency, and even employee morale. 

10 

OTHER ITF TECHNOLOGIES

While ASLs were the ITF’s first demonstrated technology solution, they are not 

our only planned demonstration. The ITF continues to expand to explore new solutions through temporary demonstrations at airports Nation-wide. 

One such new technology involves utilization of computed tomography (CT) to 

screen carry-on baggage and accessible property. CT, a mainstay for checked baggage screening, utilizes 3D-imaging and detection software to help operators automatically identify threats and may eliminate the need for divestiture of electronics 

and liquids for passenger accessible property screening. The demonstration for CT 

is planned for June of this year at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. 

ITF’s Biometric Authentication Technology (BAT) proof of concept unit uses contact or contactless fingerprint scanning to verify TSA PreCheck® passenger identity. 

In the long term, BAT could automate the Ticket Document Checker (TDC) process 

by verifying passenger identity and Secure Flight vetting status, eliminating the 

need for a boarding pass, and grant or deny access to passengers via an electronic 

gate to the security checkpoint. The proof of concept will compare the passenger’s 

fingerprint to the fingerprint the passenger provided to TSA during TSA PreCheck® 

enrollment. BAT will be demonstrated initially at Denver International Airport and 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport for proof of concept testing before 

the end of the fiscal year. 

Additionally, ITF’s Passenger Communications initiative streamlines checkpoint 

operations by presenting passengers with an avatar discussing various procedures 

such as divesting of carry-on property. TSA is working with airports and terminal 

operators to demonstrate a variety of passenger communication tools and techniques 

and provide data for future checkpoint enhancements and designs. TSA plans to 

demonstrate Passenger Communications by July 2017 at Atlanta-Hartsfield and 

Newark. 

In an effort to improve our understanding of existing market capabilities, TSA 

issued a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) in July 2016 following a June 2016 

industry day. TSA received 81 responses and completed over 200 technical reviews 

with over 30 reviewers from across TSA and the DHS enterprise. Fifty-two percent 

of the solutions submitted had not been previously deployed domestically or internationally. TSA selected eight of these technologies to potentially join the portfolio 

of ITF solutions, and referred two solutions to airports for further consideration. 

Planning activities for these eight technologies are under way. Additionally, TSA 

plans to release the second innovation-related BAA in May 2017 highlighting specific areas of interest to include mobile screening, queuing and passenger flow, and 

new detection capabilities. 

To be clear, the ITF does not provide a shortcut around traditional DHS acquisition processes. While data gathered from ITF demonstrations may be used to inform 

manufacturers in the design and preparation of their prototype units for testing at 

the DHS Transportation Security Laboratory and TSA Systems Integration Facility 

(TSIF), as well as to inform TSA in developing future technology requirements, technologies that are ITF solutions which involve passenger safety and security still 

need to go through appropriate rigorous testing at these respective facilities as required under standard acquisition processes before becoming a program of record. 

These processes ensure that before fully investing in a technology, we know it will 

enhance transportation security, reduce the risk to the traveling public, and function properly in an operational environment. 

CONCLUSION

The ITF is focused on taking a fresh look at the entire aviation security system. 

We are working with public and private partners to provide a platform for Government, industry, and stakeholders to gather requirements for new approaches to 

transportation security and accelerate the development and deployment of new technologies and improvements to operations. 

I would like to conclude by offering you all the opportunity to visit the TSIF, located nearby at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, to see these ITF technologies in action first-hand. I would also like to thank the subcommittee for its continued support of the ITF, and our airline and airport partners whose support 

makes this endeavor possible. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Mr. Karoly. Your first time testifying 

and you got within 8 seconds of the time limit. That is pretty darn 

good, so I thank you. 

I now recognize Mr. Roosevelt Council for his testimony. 

11 

STATEMENT OF ROOSEVELT COUNCIL JR., GENERAL MANAGER, HARTSFIELD-JACKSON ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL 

AIRPORT, DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, CITY OF ATLANTA, 

GEORGIA 

Mr. COUNCIL. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing, and 

let me express my sincerest gratitude for once again including 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in your discussions. 

So as you are well aware, Hartsfield-Jackson is the world’s busiest airport. In 2015 we become the first airport ever to host more 

than 100 million passengers in a single year; and in 2016 we welcomed even more, topping 104 million passengers. 

So to provide some perspective, that is more than 280,000 passengers, on average, that navigates themselves through our airport 

each and every day. In 2016 more than 17 million passengers underwent TSA screening at our airport, so that is nearly about 

47,000 daily passengers on average going through security screening each day. 

Stories of long security lines made National headlines in 2015 

and 2016. At Hartsfield-Jackson wait times exceeding 35 minutes 

were not uncommon during this time period. 

To ease congestion while keeping safety and security at the forefront, we worked with TSA and the airlines to ramp up staffing, 

open lanes earlier in the day, and increase the use of canine teams. 

In addition, we introduced automated screening lanes, commonly 

known as smart lanes, which is the subject of today’s hearing. 

Hartsfield-Jackson was the first airport in the Nation to test 

these smart lanes as part of a pilot program in which we partnered 

with Delta Air Lines, the Transportation Security Administration, 

and the city of Atlanta. These smart lanes are modeled after a system used at London’s Heathrow Airport. 

Construction on two smart lanes began May 4, 2016 at our south 

security checkpoint in our domestic terminal. Both were fully operational by May 26. 

So for Hartsfield-Jackson smart lanes supported three primary 

objectives. 

The first objective was to strengthen security. Smart lanes have 

a dual exit belt from the X-ray machine. If a bag sets off an alarm 

it is diverted to an alternate belt for inspection. The owner of the 

bag does not have access to the diverted bag. 

The second objective was to increase operational efficiencies. 

Smart lanes reduce passenger wait time. Plus, the technology, particularly the automated bin return, eases the manual work performed by TSA agents, who traditionally shuffle bins to the front 

of the line throughout the day. In addition, these lanes allow up 

to five people to divest for screening at the same time, which is 

more efficient than the single-file queues at most screening checkpoints. 

The third objective was to improve the passenger experience. The 

smart lanes’ five individual stations enable passengers to place 

items in the bins at their own pace. In effect, this set-up keeps 

slower passengers from holding up the line. Plus, the bins use a 

12 

tracking system so passengers do not have to wait to go through 

the body scanners at the same time as their bags. After passengers 

pick up their bags the bins automatically return to the start of the 

line. 

As I said, we opened our first two smart lanes in the spring of 

2016. From our initial observation, those lanes proved successful, 

safely and efficiently increasing passenger throughput by as much 

as 30 percent. 

This is an important stat when you are talking about reducing 

wait time and eliminating bottlenecks. A standard security lane 

can screen, on average, 160 passengers per hour; a smart lane can 

screen, on average, 208 passengers per hour. During busy travel 

periods like the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving, such expedited 

screening can make the difference between a 30-minute—35- 

minute wait time and an under-20-minute wait, which is 

Hartsfield-Jackson’s overall goal for security screening. 

Based on the success of these two pilot smart lanes, we decided 

to move forward with purchasing additional smart lanes to install 

in our domestic terminal. It is important to mention that in our domestic terminal we have three security checkpoints: Domestic 

south, with four lanes; domestic north, with five lanes; and domestic main, with 18 lanes. So that is a total of 27 security lanes. 

Beyond the existing smart—two existing smart lanes, our goal 

was to add 20 more, converting the majority of the standard lanes. 

That would bring us to 22 smart lanes out of 27 security lanes 

total. The north checkpoint would have four smart lanes, south 

would have three, and the main would have 15. 

Our initial two smart lanes were funded by a $1 million investment from Delta Air Lines. Hartsfield-Jackson purchased the additional 20 lanes with airport dollars. That expenditure totaled $12.5 

million. 

I should also point out that for the most part U.S. airports are 

not funding these smart lanes themselves, but relying on airlines 

to foot most of the bill. However, given the vast amount of O&D 

traffic at Hartsfield-Jackson, combined with the efficiency from the 

pilot smart lanes, we saw advantages early on and, of course, we 

were encouraged by Delta’s initial investment. 

Over the past year we have phased in the installation of 20 

smart lanes to minimize operational disruption to our passenger 

and maintain overall screening capacity. We contracted with equipment-provider MacDonald Douglas and we worked with the company to make adjustment to our checkpoints to accommodate the 

smart lanes. 

Smart lanes are roughly 52 feet long. I am sorry, standard lanes 

are roughly 52 feet long. Smart lanes require an additional 25 feet 

of space. So there is a sizable footprint to this equipment. 

So we began the electrical work in October 2016, and in November we installed one lane at the domestic south, and in December 

we installed two lanes at the domestic north. Starting in January 

we staggered the installation of 15 smart lanes at domestic main 

and two additional lanes at domestic south. 

So we set a deadline of May of this year to complete installation 

of the 20 smart lanes, and we found out last night that all lanes 

13 

are now completed and they have been certified by TSA and is now 

actually in use as of today. 

Of course, we were mindful of how the installation would impact 

our customers, so each phase took into consideration several 

things: First, that our PreCheck lanes would flex to ensure that at 

a minimum four lanes remained open throughout the construction 

time line; second, we made sure all lanes not under construction 

could be staffed if needed. 

So now that all 22 lanes have been installed, I want to offer a 

few observations. 

First, it is clear that smart lanes speed passenger processing. We 

have seen that in action. 

But I should mentioned two important caveats. First, these 

smart lanes have been with us just shy of 1 year, so their performance over time will be the true measure of success. But based on 

initial findings, we are pleased with the results. 

The second caveat is that a learning curve exists for passengers 

who are unfamiliar with the technology. However, we are confident 

that in time people will understand the process and enjoy the convenience and time savings. 

The second observation is that it is clear that automation benefits both TSA and the airport. The automated bin system has relieved TSA agents of manual work involving the bins, but the 

smart lanes themselves have also provided security enhancements. 

If a suspicious bag is detected it is kept secured from passengers 

without holding up the line. 

The final observation is that clear lanes may help propel our airport’s long-term growth. As I mentioned earlier, this airport welcomed 104 million passengers in 2016. That is a 2.6 percent increase over 2015, and we expect our passenger count to continue 

to climb this year and beyond. 

So these smart lanes, combined with the renovation, modernization, and expansion of our facilities as part of our 20-year capital 

improvement program, will prove useful as we grow our operations 

to meet passenger demand well into the future. 

Now, I should also mention that while Hartsfield-Jackson has 

been the pioneer on testing smart lanes, as earlier mentioned, 

other airports have also jumped on board. Hartsfield-Jackson’s pioneering efforts are due in no large part to strong working relationships we have cultivated over the years with our stakeholders, particularly TSA. 

I want to express our team’s gratitude to Atlanta’s TSA Federal 

Security Director Mary Leftridge Byrd for the remarkable job she 

and her team do each day to ensure passenger safety and security 

while trying to achieve exemplary customer service. The world’s 

busiest airport appreciates its cohesive and respectful relationship 

with TSA in order to achieve these successful operations on a daily 

basis. 

So in closing, while it is too early to fully assess the strength and 

weaknesses of smart lanes, our findings over the past year have 

shown positive results when it comes to enhancing safety, accelerating passenger processing, increasing operational efficiency, and 

improving the customer experience. 

14 

So once again, I would like to thank this body for the opportunity 

to address this very important issue at this time. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Council follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROOSEVELT COUNCIL, JR. 

APRIL 27, 2017 

Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing. And let me express my sincerest 

gratitude for once again including Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 

in your discussions. 

As you are well aware, Hartsfield-Jackson is the world’s busiest airport. In 2015, 

we became the first airport ever to host more than 100 million passengers in a single year. And in 2016, we welcomed even more, topping 104 million passengers. To 

provide some perspective, that’s more than 280,000 passengers, on average, navigating through the airport each and every day. 

In 2016, more than 17 million passengers underwent TSA security screening at 

our airport. That’s nearly 47,000 daily passengers, on average, going through security screening each day. 

Stories of long security lines made National headlines in 2015 and 2016. At 

Hartsfield-Jackson, wait times exceeding 35 minutes were not uncommon during 

this time period. To ease congestion while keeping safety and security at the forefront, we worked with TSA and the airlines to ramp up staffing, open lanes earlier 

in the day and increase the use of K–9 teams. 

In addition, we introduced Automated Screening Lanes, commonly known as 

Smart Lanes, which is the subject of today’s hearing. 

Hartsfield-Jackson was the first airport in the Nation to test these Smart Lanes 

as part of a pilot program in which we partnered with Delta Air Lines, the Transportation Security Administration and the city of Atlanta. These Smart Lanes are 

modeled after a system used at London Heathrow Airport. 

Construction on two Smart Lanes began May 4, 2016, at our South Security 

checkpoint in our Domestic Terminal. Both were fully operational by May 26. 

For Hartsfield-Jackson, Smart Lanes supported three primary objectives: 

• The first objective: to strengthen security.—Smart Lanes have a dual exit belt 

from the X-ray machine. If a bag sets off an alarm, it is diverted to an alternate 

belt for inspection. The owner of the bag does not have access to the diverted 

bag. 

• The second objective: to increase operational efficiencies.—Smart Lanes reduce 

passenger wait times. Plus, the technology, particularly the automatic bin return, eases the manual work performed by TSA agents, who traditionally shuffle bins to the front of the line throughout the day. In addition, these lanes 

allow up to five passengers to divest for screening at the same time, which is 

more efficient than single-file queues at most screening checkpoints. 

• The third objective: to improve the passenger experience.—The Smart Lanes’ five 

individual stations enable passengers to place items in the bins at their own 

pace. In effect, this set-up keeps slower passengers from holding up the line. 

Plus, the bins use a tracking mechanism so passengers do not have to wait to 

go through the body scanner at the same time as their bags. After passengers 

pick up their bags, the bins automatically return to the start of the line. 

As I said, we opened our first two Smart Lanes in the spring of 2016. From our 

initial observations, those lanes proved successful, safely and efficiently speeding 

passenger throughput by as much as 30 percent. This is an important statistic when 

you’re talking about reducing wait times and eliminating bottlenecks. 

A standard security lane can screen, on average, 160 passengers per hour. A 

Smart Lane can screen, on average, 208 passengers per hour. During busy travel 

periods—like the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving—such expedited screening can 

make the difference between a 35-minute wait and an under 20-minute wait, which 

is Hartsfield-Jackson’s overall goal for security screening. 

Based on the success of our two pilot Smart Lanes, we decided to move forward 

with purchasing additional Smart Lanes to install in our Domestic Terminal. 

It is important to mention that in our Domestic Terminal, we have three security 

checkpoints: Domestic South with four lanes; Domestic North with five lanes; and 

Domestic Main with 18 lanes. That’s 27 security lanes total. 

Beyond the two existing Smart Lanes, our goal was to add 20 more, converting 

the majority of the standard lanes. That would bring us to 22 Smart Lanes out of 

15 

27 security lanes total. The North checkpoint would have four Smart Lanes, South 

would have three, and Main would have 15. 

Our initial two Smart Lanes were funded by a $1 million investment from Delta 

Air Lines. Hartsfield-Jackson purchased the additional 20 lanes with airport dollars. 

That expenditure totaled about $12.5 million. I should point out that, for the most 

part, U.S. airports are not funding these Smart Lanes themselves, but relying on 

airlines to foot the bill. However, given the vast amount of Origin and Destination 

traffic at Hartsfield-Jackson—combined with the efficiency from the pilot Smart 

Lanes program—we saw advantages early on and, of course, we were encouraged 

by Delta’s initial investment. 

Over the past year, we have phased in the installation of 20 Smart Lanes to minimize operational disruption to our passengers and maintain overall screening capacity. 

We contracted with equipment provider MacDonald-Humphrey, and we worked 

with the company to make adjustments to our checkpoints to accommodate the 

Smart Lanes. Standard lanes are roughly 52 feet long. Smart lanes require an additional 25 feet of space, so there is a sizable footprint to this equipment. 

We began the electrical work in October 16. Then in November, we installed one 

lane at Domestic South. And in December, we installed two lanes at Domestic 

North. Starting in January of this year, we staggered the installation of 15 Smart 

Lanes at Domestic Main and two additional lanes at Domestic North. We set a 

deadline of May of this year to complete installation of the 20 Smart Lanes, and 

I was told last week that we are ahead of schedule for the busy Memorial Day weekend travel. 

Of course, we were mindful of how the installation would impact our customers. 

So each phase took into consideration several things: First, that our PreCheck lanes 

would ‘‘flex’’ to ensure that, at a minimum, four lanes remained open throughout 

the construction time line. Second, we made sure all lanes not under construction 

could be staffed if needed. 

So now that 19 of 22 Smart Lanes have been installed and are in use, I want 

to offer a few observations: 

• First, it’s clear that Smart Lanes speed passenger processing.—We’ve seen that 

in action. But I should mention two important caveats: First, these Smart 

Lanes have been with us just shy of 1 year, so their performance over time will 

be the true measure of success. But based on our initial findings, we are pleased 

with the results. The second caveat is this: A learning curve exists for passengers who are unfamiliar with the technology. However, we are confident 

that, in time, people will understand the process and enjoy the convenience and 

time savings. 

• Second, it’s clear that automation benefits both TSA and the airport.—The automated bin system has relieved TSA agents of manual work involving the bins. 

But the Smart Lanes themselves have also provided security enhancements. If 

a suspicious bag is detected, it is kept secured from passengers without holding 

up the line. 

• Third, it’s clear that Smart Lanes may help propel our long-term growth.—As 

I mentioned earlier, this airport welcomed 104 million passengers in 2016. 

That’s a 2.6 percent increase over our 2015 numbers. And we expect our passenger counts to continue climbing this year and beyond. So these Smart 

Lanes—combined with the renovation, modernization, and expansion of our facilities as part of our 20-year capital improvement program—will prove useful 

as we grow our operations to meet passenger demand well into the future. 

I should also mention that while Hartsfield-Jackson has been the pioneer on testing these Smart Lanes, other airports have jumped on board. These airports include 

LAX, Chicago’s O’Hare, Newark, and Dallas-Fort Worth. 

Hartsfield-Jackson’s pioneering efforts are due, in no small part, to strong working relationships we have cultivated with our stakeholders, particularly TSA. I want 

to express our team’s gratitude to TSA Federal Security Director Mary Leftridge 

Byrd for the remarkable job she and her team do each day to ensure passenger safety and security while trying to achieve exemplary customer service. The world’s 

busiest airport appreciates its cohesive and respectful relationship with TSA to 

achieve successful operations on a daily basis. 

In closing, while it’s too early to fully assess the strengths and weaknesses of 

Smart Lanes, our findings over the past year have shown positive results when it 

comes to enhancing safety, accelerating passenger processing, increasing operational 

efficiencies and improving the customer experience. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address this body. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Mr. Council, for your testimony. 

16 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Olivier for her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JEANNE M. OLIVIER, A.A.E., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AVIATION SECURITY AND TECHNOLOGY, SECURITY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS DEPARTMENT, THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY 

Ms. OLIVIER. Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the checkpoint of the future and TSA’s Innovation 

Task Force. 

As assistant director of aviation security and technology for the 

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey I oversee security operations for John F. Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Stewart International Airports in New York, and Newark Liberty International 

Airport in New Jersey. 

There are, as you have heard, currently 17 automated screening 

lanes deployed at Newark. Deployments are also underway at Kennedy Airport, expected to be completed somewhat in—toward the 

end of May. 

United Airlines purchased the automated screening equipment 

and paid for the necessary reconfiguration of the checkpoint at 

Newark Airport. The Port Authority appreciates, certainly, the investment that United was willing to make to provide these lanes. 

The lanes have been well-received by our passengers at Newark 

and we have seen an increase in the throughput at the TSA security checkpoint, which has helped to maintain reasonable wait 

times and reduce congestion in the public queuing area. It is important to note, however, that although throughput has increased 

as a result of the automated screening lanes, the number of transportation security officers needed to effectively screen passengers 

has not been reduced. 

The lanes funded by Newark—by United at Newark were proposed at a time of crisis when TSA was unable to meet the surging 

passenger demand last spring and summer due to insufficient TSA 

personnel and resources. Fortunately, Congress was able to authorize additional funding for TSA personnel, overtime, and canine deployments. 

I would like to pause right here and say, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the significant focus you and the committee dedicated to 

the checkpoint improvements last year. We could not have gotten 

through that without you. 

We cannot neglect or cut back on the TSA resources needed 

today to maintain effective and efficient screening operations for 

passengers and baggage at airports across the country. Innovation 

and technology investments must be made in addition to the staffing levels needed to accommodate the significant growth in travel. 

Newark alone has grown by 10 percent this year to date over last 

year. 

While responsibility for passenger and baggage screening are by 

law the sole responsibility of the TSA, airports, of course, play a 

critical role in partnering with the agency to help it meet its core 

mission. Since last spring airports and air carriers have provided 

and continue to provide significant support for non-security functions and technology deployment at TSA security checkpoints. The 

17 

recent smooth and relatively seamless spring break travel this year 

highlights the effectiveness of this on-going partnership. 

However, airport and air carrier resources are not infinite and 

private industry cannot and should not be made responsible for 

funding TSA’s primary and fundamental responsibility for screening passengers and baggage effectively and efficiently. Federal 

funding resources are vital to ensure the long-term sustainability 

of TSA’s Innovation Task Force. 

The Port Authority and airports across the country welcome the 

opportunity to partner directly with TSA on additional agile and 

innovative solutions. We are eager to assist TSA and—with operational testing to ensure that innovative technologies or processes 

work effectively and do not inadvertently slow down passenger 

screening. 

We also look forward to a checkpoint of the future that does not 

require people to divest shoes, coats, laptops, and might even allow 

them once again to carry food and beverages through the checkpoint. 

As public entities, airports, just like the TSA, have public safety 

and security as their key mission. Just like the Federal Government, we need the flexibility and resources to spur innovative solutions that meet or exceed current security requirements. Local 

funding resources, like the passenger facility charge, can provide 

the resources necessary to facilitate investments at the local level 

to further enhance the myriad of airport security responsibilities. 

In conclusion, the Port Authority and airport operators across the 

country support the Innovation Task Force and look forward to 

helping test innovative solutions. Federal funding is key to the 

long-term success of the Innovation Task Force. 

The Innovation Task Force efforts must be on top of adequate 

staffing, canines, and other TSA resources needed to maintain the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the checkpoint of today. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Olivier follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEANNE M. OLIVIER, A.A.E. 

APRIL 27, 2017 

Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the checkpoint of the future and 

the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s collaboration with the Transportation Security Administration and its Innovation Task Force. I currently serve as 

assistant director, aviation security and technology for the Security Operations and 

Programs Department of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. In this 

capacity, I oversee security operations for New York’s John F. Kennedy International, LaGuardia, and Stewart International airports and for Newark Liberty 

International Airport in New Jersey. I am also the second vice chair of the American Association of Airport Executives, which represents thousands of men and 

women across the country who manage and operate the Nation’s airports. 

The Port Authority’s airport system served a combined 129.4 million passengers 

in 2016. Specifically, Newark Liberty International processed 40.4 million, John F. 

Kennedy International hosted 58.9 million, LaGuardia greeted 29.8 million, and 

Stewart International served 275,000. Newark’s share of the NY/NJ area airport 

system passengers is 31.2 percent. It offers non-stop air service to more than 165 

destinations aboard dozens of air carriers. Newark Liberty has an enormous economic impact on the region, responsible for: About 188,089 jobs, $9.9 billion in annual wages, and $27.2 billion in annual sales. Traffic at Newark Liberty is projected 

to grow by 5 percent in 2017, however, we have already seen an amazing actual 

growth of 10 percent this year to date over last year, far exceeding the National avVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17TP0427\17TP0427.TXT HEATH
18 

erage of 2 to 4 percent traffic growth projected by the Federal Aviation Administration. Nation-wide, TSA anticipates a 4 percent growth in passenger volume and expects to screen 228 million passengers between Memorial Day and Labor Day compared to 217 million passengers last summer. Thus, effective and efficient passenger 

screening is very important for our successful operation and service to travelers. 

Terminal C, operated solely by United Airlines, at Newark Liberty International 

Airport accounts for 57 percent of the airport’s passenger volume, or 23.1 million 

travelers last year. There are currently 17 Automated Screening Lanes (ASL) deployed at Newark Liberty International Airport at the Terminal C checkpoint. The 

first of the lanes were installed in November 2016. United Airlines purchased the 

ASL equipment and paid for the necessary reconfiguration of the checkpoint area. 

The new automated screening lanes offer several features that automate many of 

the functions previously conducted manually, which allows travelers to move more 

swiftly and efficiently through the checkpoint. These innovations include: • Stainless steel countertops that were constructed to enable several passengers 

to place their items in bins simultaneously; • Automated conveyor belts that draw bins into the X-ray machines, and return 

the bins back to the front of the queue for passengers; • Carry-on bags that trigger an alarm warning of a potential threat are automatically pushed to a separate area to allow bins behind to continue through the 

screening process uninterrupted; • Property bins that are 25 percent larger than the bins in standard screening 

lanes and large enough to hold roller bags; • Unique Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags that are attached to each 

bin to allow for additional accountability of a traveler’s items as they transit 

throughout the security process; and • Cameras that capture photographic images of the contents of each bin, which 

are linked side-by-side to the X-ray image of a bag’s contents. 

The lanes have been well received by passengers at Newark Liberty and have 

been working as intended. We have seen an increase in passenger throughput at 

the TSA security checkpoint, which has helped to maintain reasonable wait times 

and reduce congestion in the public queuing area. The PANYNJ appreciates the investment that United was willing to make to provide these lanes as faster throughput and reduced congestion improves the passenger experience and reduces 

vulnerabilities in the public area. 

Although the ASLs get travelers through the TSA screening checkpoint at a faster 

pace, it is our understanding that they do not reduce the number of Transportation 

Security Officers needed to effectively screen passengers. TSA is currently conducting a detailed data collection covering all key checkpoint activity, including detection and alarm rates, throughput, operations, maintenance, optimal configurations and staffing ratios, at the four airports where automated screening lanes are 

currently deployed. We encourage TSA to carefully analyze the data before making 

any staffing allocation decisions or changes to its resource allocation model. The improvements provided by the ASLs would be quickly negated by a premature or 

short-sighted reduction of TSA screening personnel. 

The ASLs funded by United at Newark Liberty were launched at a time of crisis 

when TSA was unable to meet the surging passenger demand last spring and summer due to insufficient TSA personnel and resources. Fortunately, Congress was 

able to authorize additional funding for TSA personnel, overtime, and canine deployments. It is vital that TSA receives the funding levels necessary to continue to ensure adequate TSO levels, canines, and other resources to maintain checkpoint efficiency. 

At the same time, airport operators and air carriers joined in partnership with 

TSA to provide contract personnel to cover non-security functions at the checkpoint 

in addition to the investments made in automated screening lanes. Airport and air 

carrier support of TSA checkpoint operations continue today, and the reasonable 

wait times across the country during the recent spring break travel season highlights the effectiveness of this on-going partnership. However, airport and air carrier 

resources are not infinite, and private industry cannot and should not be made responsible for funding TSA’s primary and fundamental responsibility for screening 

passengers and baggage effectively and efficiently. 

Federal funding resources are vital to ensure the long-term sustainability of TSA’s 

Innovation Task Force. Additionally, Federal funding resources will allow TSA to 

make investments solely on the merits of an innovative technology or process without the bias of competitive advantage factors inherent in private-sector funding decisions. 

In addition to enhancing the passenger experience at airports through investments in ASLs and other technology, Federal funding holds the potential to spur 

19 

further technological and process innovations to fundamentally change checkpoint 

screening operating procedures. Possible enhancements include allowing passengers 

to pass through the checkpoint without stopping, taking off shoes or removing 

laptops from bags, carrying beverages and food while at the same time improving 

security and detection. As these technologies are developed, airports are eager to assist TSA with operational testing to ensure that these innovations work effectively 

in a challenging airport environment and do not inadvertently slow down passenger 

processing. 

TSA’s expedited screening program, PreCheck, provides a glimpse into the possibilities of a checkpoint of the future. The complementary program currently allows 

vetted and other eligible passengers to keep on their shoes and lightweight jackets 

and leave laptops and allowed liquids in their carry-on baggage. Unfortunately, 

PreCheck, as a Government-run procurement program, is not living up to its full 

potential. 

Although TSA continues to slowly grow participation in the program, the 

PreCheck enrollment process is cumbersome, and enrollment options are severely 

limited. The private sector and industry stakeholders, including airport operators, 

have presented and advocated for innovative solutions that would increase participation in the PreCheck program and achieve the robust, critical mass levels originally envisioned for the program. TSA needs to follow the direction mandated by 

Congress in the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016 to ‘‘publish application enrollment standards that add multiple private-sector application capabilities 

for the PreCheck program to increase the public’s enrollment access to such program.’’ We hope that TSA will soon follow the direction of Congress to coordinate 

with interested parties to deploy TSA-approved ready-to-market private sector solutions; partner with the private sector to use kiosks, mobile devices or other mobile 

enrollment platforms to make enrollment easier; and, consider leveraging existing 

resources and abilities at airports to conduct fingerprint and background checks. 

While responsibility for passenger and baggage screening are by law the sole responsibility of TSA, airports play an essential role in partnering with the agency 

to help it meet its core mission. The PANYNJ looks forward to continuing to partner 

with TSA to ensure effective, efficient, and innovative security operations for the 

screening of passengers and baggage. 

In addition to working with the TSA to meet its passenger and baggage screening 

mandates, airports perform a number of inherently local security-related functions 

at their facilities, including incident response and management, perimeter security, 

employee credentialing, access control, infrastructure and operations planning, and 

numerous local law enforcement and public safety functions. 

Airport operators—just like the Federal Government—need the flexibility and resources to spur innovative solutions that meet or exceed current security requirements. Local funding sources, like the Passenger Facility Charge, can provide the 

resources necessary to facilitate innovation and technology investment at the local 

level to further enhance the myriad of airport security responsibilities. 

The PANYNJ and airport operators across the country support the TSA’s Innovation Task Force (ITF) efforts and look forward to more opportunities for direct partnership and engagement to test innovative solutions at the passenger checkpoint 

and throughout the airport environment. We hope that TSA’s ITF can be sustainable for the long-term and enable the agency to be agile in its investment and deployment decisions. Agility is key to staying ahead of evolving threats to aviation, 

which continues to be a prime target for terrorists. Again, Federal funding for the 

ITF will be necessary to ensure TSA has the ability to work with all interested industry partners, including airport operators, and can focus on innovations that have 

the potential to fundamentally change the screening process. 

In the mean time, we cannot neglect or cut back on the TSA personnel, canines, 

and other resources needed today to maintain effective and efficient screening operations for passengers and baggage at airports across the country. Innovation and 

technology investment must be made in addition to the staffing levels needed to accommodate the significant growth in air travel. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. As public agents, the PANYNJ and my 

airport colleagues across the country take our security mission very seriously. We 

welcome the opportunity to partner with TSA to introduce new and innovative approaches to enhancing security throughout the airport environment. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Ms. Olivier. 

Thank you for your kind words about the collaborative effort we 

had last summer to deal with a crisis with checkpoints. You know, 

no one person takes credit for it. It was a team effort and we all, 

20 

private sector and public sector worked together and solved the 

problem. 

What a concept, everybody working together, right? So I think 

that is a good thing and we will continue to do that moving forward. That is, indeed, the goal of this committee. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. But before I 

do that I will note votes were just called, so after my questions we 

will suspend until after votes. Sorry to keep you here longer, but 

that is how it goes. 

Now, Mr. Karoly, I appreciate your testimony and I want to talk 

to you in a moment about the ITF and how we can make it better. 

I just want to note, Mr. Council, for you that if I don’t get to you 

in the first round of questions I most definitely will get to you in 

the second round because I want to talk to you a little bit more 

about what Atlanta is doing with respect to employee screening. 

So first of all, with respect to the task force, I know, Mr. Karoly, 

that you have been heavily involved in looking at the automated 

screening lanes. Is that correct? 

Mr. KAROLY. Yes, sir. It is one of our initiatives. 

Mr. KATKO. OK. How long have you had the screening lanes up 

and moving? 

Mr. KAROLY. So we started this endeavor, again, with Atlanta 

and Delta Air Lines back in April. It was a 9-week effort and we 

were able to deploy that by Memorial Day of 2016. 

Mr. KATKO. OK. Is it only one airport they are being tested at 

or is it Nation-wide? 

Mr. KAROLY. So we are testing them Nation-wide. We have, 

again, 51 ASL lanes and we are assessing each of those lanes, or 

the manufacturers, at various airports. 

Mr. KATKO. OK. Then the second thing is upcoming demonstrations that haven’t come on-line yet are the computed tomography, 

or basically 3-D scanners? 

Mr. KAROLY. Yes, sir. It is the C.T. at the checkpoint, if you will. 

Mr. KATKO. Right. Are they up and going yet, or no? 

Mr. KAROLY. So we have tested them at the Transportation Security Lab in New Jersey for—to meet the detection standard, which 

two of the three have passed. We also have tested in the TSIF two 

of the three to go through we will say initial operational checks. 

Right now they are working on one last change, if you will, to 

their software, and we will be deploying those: One to Phoenix Airport in the next 2 weeks if all goes well with the computer check, 

and then the other one either in Boston and/or Chicago. 

Mr. KATKO. The third component I understand you are looking 

at—and we are—I am excited about all of it, but I am particularly 

excited about the use of biometrics and the biometric authentication technology, which is really one component of some of the advancing technologies out there. Have you done anything with the 

biometric authentication technology yet? 

Mr. KAROLY. Yes, sir. It is presently in our Transportation Security Integration Facility going through some assessment before getting it out to the field for initial deployment for a pilot demonstration. We expect to get it out this summer if all goes well, and that 

is a biometric fingerprint collection technology, if you will. 

21 

Mr. KATKO. Now, is it fair to say that if the resources were better 

allocated to the task force that you might be able to get more of 

this technology out in a more expedited manner? 

Mr. KAROLY. Sir, I guess as a systems engineer and acquisition 

professional I would say in a unconstrained environment we could 

always do more if we were to receive more. But obviously we are 

in a fiscally constrained environment and as long as the ITF receives funding as documented in the President’s budget, I believe 

we can execute our mission in 2018. 

Mr. KATKO. OK. 

Now, of course we have to watch the budget. We have a terrible 

deficit. 

But there is also—I know this is shocking so I am glad you are 

sitting down when I say this—but there are areas where agencies 

could find some waste and reallocate resources or reprioritize resources. When it comes to protecting the public and especially with 

respect to aviation, I think that is of paramount importance, and 

so getting the new and innovative products tested and to market, 

if you will, and on the front lines doing what they are intended to 

do quicker, I don’t think we can dedicate enough resources to that. 

So do you have any idea of what type of things you could do if 

you had more resources? Can you tell us what those resources are 

that you would need? 

Mr. KAROLY. In an unconstrained environment, sir, I would think 

that I would focus—again, I would really have to think back how 

it ties together, but I would focus on functional areas. 

So in other words, I think I would—we are doing planning and 

strategy today; I would do more planning and strategy for other 

initiatives. We are doing testing and assessment today; I would do 

more testing and assessment for other technologies. 

Additionally, we dedicate some funds to our broad agency announcement, focusing on small businesses who can’t actually fund 

maybe their assessments to an airport. So we would fund that travel. I would look at increasing that area. 

Last, systems integration across the board as we integrate these 

systems into the field. 

Mr. KATKO. OK. Do you have any idea of the amount of personnel you would need to do that, or the additional personnel and 

additional resources in order to achieve that goal? 

Mr. KAROLY. Today we have 14 FTE working for the Innovation 

Task Force. 

Mr. KATKO. Nation-wide just 14? 

Mr. KAROLY. At the headquarters staff. 

Mr. KATKO. OK. 

Mr. KAROLY. But this is a big, again, as we always said, publicprivate partnership. A lot of TSA personnel are supporting it. Just 

the ITF staff themselves, but we work within TSA getting human 

factors, getting training folks, getting operation support folks. 

So it is bigger than the 14, but your specific question was for 

ITF-related directly. 

Again, I would have to go back, but the vision of the final operation capability of our organization within ORCA, our Office of Requirements and Capabilities Analysis, was looking at about 25 FTE 

for the Innovation Task Force. 

22 

Mr. KATKO. OK. What I would like you to do—my time is up. Before I do it, I would ask you to do is go back with your folks and, 

you know, come up with a couple of different scenarios whereby 

specifics with respect to personnel, and get back to us within a few 

weeks as to what, you know, what we could do to help really, truly 

turbocharge this task force idea. 

Because what we want to do is be able to get the technologies, 

like I said, that is cutting-edge on the front lines working as they 

are supposed to much quicker than we are currently doing. One of 

the keys to that is Innovation Task Force, and the public-private 

partnership component of this is a wonderful idea and it is just— 

but it does things TSA has done a long time. 

So let’s try and figure out a way to step it up. If you can get back 

with a proposal within a week, or 2 weeks at the most, I would 

very, very much appreciate it because we are going to begin the authorization process, and I want to include this in part of that process, OK? 

Mr. KAROLY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KATKO. All right. Thank you. 

Now, Mrs. Watson Coleman likes to be on time, and I am a little 

bit different in that regard. So we are going to gavel out and go 

upstairs and vote, and as soon as we are done with votes I ask everybody to come back here and we will continue with the hearing. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. KATKO. The committee is back in session. I wanted to apologize for the delay, but we don’t keep the schedule on the floor of 

the House, we just go when they tell us to go, as I hope you understand. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mrs. Watson 

Coleman, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, Ms. Olivier, excuse me for messing up your name. I 

just didn’t look at it. 

One of the things you indicated was that soon JFK was going to 

have these smart lanes. Did I hear that correctly? 

Ms. OLIVIER. Yes, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. My question is, who is paying for them? 

Ms. OLIVIER. The airlines. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. The airlines. 

Ms. OLIVIER. Yes. So at Kennedy it is Delta for T–2 and T–4 and 

then American Airlines for T–8. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. OK. 

So I guess, Mr. Karoly—did I say that right? Because I think I 

messed your name up, too. 

Mr. KAROLY. You did, ma’am. All good. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Oh, good. Thank you. Thank you. 

What are you doing about the airports that can’t—that don’t 

have the kind of relationship with airlines, that don’t have an airline that is willing to install these? What is TSA’s role here, and 

what should we be expecting, and what would you need? 

Mr. KAROLY. So right now, ma’am, we are under what we call an 

urgent operational need authority, and that authority gave us permission to go deploy these, working with our stakeholders, to these 

23 

21 airports. So we are working with all of those airports to figure 

out what best works for them at this point in time. 

So again, the airlines are negotiating, if you will, with the airport 

authority, and the airport authority negotiating with the airlines. 

Then once that initial engagement occurs then TSA gets involved, 

if you will, to work together to actually deploy these at those airports. 

So I believe right now we don’t need anything additional to execute under that UON requirement. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So, but is this an assumption that TSA 

won’t have to actually use its financial resources to install these in 

any airport, that you would only be responsible for operation and 

maintenance? 

Mr. KAROLY. This summer, ma’am, we are going to go and decide, using the data that we are getting now through the assessments, to determine if this becomes a program of record for TSA. 

So—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. A pardon-me of record? 

Mr. KAROLY. It is called a program of record, a real acquisition 

program of record. 

If it is determined through the data cost-benefit analysis that it 

makes sense for us to—that—for it to become a program of record, 

we will end up starting to procure these in the out years, if you 

will. That is the plan. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I guess this is for both Ms. Olivier and 

Mr. Council—and thank you, also, for being here. What has been 

the most noticeable difference in your interactions with TSA since 

the creation of the task force? How can Congress be helpful as you 

try to keep moving your respective organizations forward in improving both passenger services and security? 

Mr. Council and, again, Ms. Olivier. 

Mr. COUNCIL. Thank you, Congressman. 

So we have somewhat of an outstanding relationship with our 

TSA partners in Atlanta. You know, they have been on board the 

whole way, especially when it comes to the smart lanes, you know. 

One condition that I think that I mentioned to you that with the 

smart lanes TSA needed to own those lanes to be able to operate 

them, OK? So we had to gift those lanes to TSA. Of course, our 

stakeholder in Georgia allowed us to actually do that, which I am 

assuming then will be the responsibility of TSA to handle the operations and the maintenance of those. 

So we have had to do that to get certified lanes for use. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. COUNCIL. Yes. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So let me just ask you, Mr. Karoly, is 

that your sort of understanding the way TSA—how it would operate in that space? You would be responsible for owning these lanes, 

operating them, and ensuring the maintenance of them? 

Mr. KAROLY. Yes, ma’am. That is how it is working today, that, 

again, of those that are deployed either the airlines or airport 

would gift it to us and/or bail, which is another term that they use. 

But as part of the negotiation between the ASL manufacturer 

and the airline or the airport there is a 2-year maintenance warranty period, so that is covered under their initial costs. Once that 

24 

2-year warranty period is up we, the Government, will end up taking that maintenance at that point. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Ms. Olivier, do you have comments to this question? 

If it is red it is on. Only here. 

Ms. OLIVIER. Thank you. 

Yes, Congresswoman. We do feel that we have a very good working relationship with the local TSA as well as those Nationally to 

promote innovative technologies, and we are always eager to help 

pilot new activities. 

I would say that our interaction at the National level for the task 

force, that largely occurred between United and the task force 

itself. But, of course, we then provide all of the oversight for ensuring the equivalent of building code, you know, correctness, and we 

have the security oversight during the construction periods. Those 

things were all—engaged the Port Authority resources. 

Locally, both the TSA and the Port Authority, as well as United, 

are very excited about the improvements in the screening checkpoint. 

I would caution the issue of maintenance, though. We have noticed at all of our airports that if there is a weak link in the chain 

it is that maintenance contract. While I have not—I can’t link that 

to the innovation lanes, I can link it—and there are no secrets in 

this; we all know that there are some issues with the Government 

contract to get the maintenance done in a timely way and to have 

parts delivered in a very timely way. 

Local TSA folks are extremely creative if they have to cannibalize parts from one machine to keep another one working, but 

the actually delivery of parts is a problem. I think the TSA needs 

some help and inspection in that contract. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. That is actually good information for us to have. 

I just have one quick question. 

You all mentioned the fact that even with these smart lanes that 

does not mean that there is going to be a need for less TSA personnel. You also talked about the importance of canines in ensuring safety and security. 

So I am wondering if you have any thoughts about any budget 

proposals that you have seen or heard about as it relates to perhaps diminishing some of the resources and the capacity of the 

TSA to provide those personnel and those canines. I would like to 

ask both Mr. Council and Ms. Olivier to respond. 

Mr. COUNCIL. For us, any reduction below the current level will 

clearly have somewhat of an impact for us, mainly based on the 

volume that we actually generate at Hartsfield-Jackson. But we 

haven’t seen that yet. 

But if there is any kind of proposed reduction then, of course, 

that means that we would have to work in collaboration with our 

local TSA to see just what that means to us, alright, because for 

now we are not looking just at managing the current demand that 

we have. We know that our demand is actually going up, alright, 

and we want to make sure that we are properly in place with the 

25 

amount of resources that is actually needed for us to keep things 

going. 

Again, understand for us that as soon as we can get people 

through security and to get on the secure side then they become 

less of a target, and we try to reduce that by minimizing the wait 

times for most of our passengers. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

I don’t know if you wanted to respond to that. 

Ms. OLIVIER. I agree completely. We know that it is a difficult 

time and that budgets are constrained, so we are very sensitive to 

that. 

But any diminution in the staffing for screeners at our facilities 

we fear we are going to revisit March of last year. We don’t feel 

that we can lose that. 

Just in terms of funding many of the initiatives, whether it is 

the—going forward with the Innovation Task Force or other aspects of these operations, obviously we are concerned that there is 

an aviation security fee that is part of what goes on a plane ticket 

and that those funds are currently being used to, you know, cover 

the deficit—the Federal deficit—as opposed to going to the TSA for 

use in things like innovation and other screeners. So certainly we 

are concerned about that. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

I just want to mention, Olivia, I hope this has been a good experience for you and you are proud of your father. Of course, he has 

done so well in his appearance before us today. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you. 

The Chair will now recognize other Members of the subcommittee for 5 minutes for questions they may wish to ask the 

witnesses. In accordance with our committee rules and practice, I 

plan to recognize Members who were present at the start of the 

hearing by seniority on the subcommittee. Those coming in later 

will be recognized in the order of their arrival. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 

Higgins, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Council, I would like to advise you, sir, that I traverse to 

your airport many, many, many times, and it is a testament to 

your own management and your people that it is much less stressful through the TSA screening lanes than it is to get through the 

baggage checkpoint at Delta, so that is a shift for sure. Congratulations. 

Mr. COUNCIL. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The use of canines, it has been proven again and 

again that the canine dogs, well-trained with a canine officer, are 

highly effective at detecting residue or the presence of explosive 

materials or gunpowder. We have used them effectively for many 

years in different aspects of securing our country, including the 

military, of course, and law enforcement. 

You stated that the use of canines has been crucial to the success 

of your own TSA screening. So I would ask you, considering the 

sort of old-tech effectiveness of a canine and a trained officer, and 

26 

specifically regarding a PreCheck line or perhaps in the future 

something beyond PreCheck—for instance, frequent flyers and 

trusted travelers that are perhaps Government employees that 

have already in possession of a significant security clearance 

through the U.S. Government, something perhaps that you may envision beyond a PreCheck level, would not the use of an officer and 

a canine be enough without the investment in technologies and 

whatnot to completely screen a PreCheck customer, a flyer—frequent flyer, someone that has been entrusted with some envisioned 

level of PreCheck beyond what currently exists? 

Mr. COUNCIL. So, Congressman, clearly the canines have been a 

very useful tool for us, you know, and we try to use them as expeditiously as we can. I think currently we have 10 canine units. 

What is so amazing about them is that—and what I have learned 

is that, you know, that people oftentimes ask, you know, why don’t 

they see more? Well, it is because they can’t really work in close 

proximity to each other because it sort of throws them off. 

They are so sensitively and highly tuned to where it really sortof negates their ability to detect when they are in close proximity 

to another canine. So it sort-of works in a certain way. 

You know, I would say that given the emergent threats that 

seem to be almost on a constant basis, you know, I would think, 

you know, that eliminating any kind of possible resource that we 

have that could possibly detect anything, you know, would be, you 

know, something that I think that we would have to be careful 

with. You know, I can’t really speak to maybe what TSA would actually do when it comes to that, you know, which is sort-of in their 

space about how they manage that. All the canines are TSA canines. 

You know, but from our perspective, you know, safety and security, again, is first and foremost for us. So whatever gets people 

through this airport safely and securely, then we are all for it. We 

are all for it. 

Mr. HIGGINS. We are on the same page. I bring it up, sir, because 

in an airport during the course of my travels over the last few 

months the backpack that I always carry was side-barred for 

searching. I had left a can of Red Bull in there I didn’t know 

about—I had forgotten. So that needed to be checked, obviously, 

and I understood that. 

But during that process my backpack was swabbed. I can only 

assume that would have been for gunpowder residue. Would that 

be correct? 

Mr. COUNCIL. I think TSA would probably—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. Swab would be put into—— 

Mr. KAROLY. Yes, sir, for explosive trace. 

Mr. HIGGINS. OK. Well, that technology did not work because in 

that backpack on countless occasions I have carried firearms and 

ammunition for a couple years in that backpack. 

I think it is important as we move forward and we look at technologies and consider technologies that sometimes old-school works 

very well relative to new technologies, and especially within this 

era of a $20 trillion debt, as we seek to protect the people’s treasure as we move forward in looking at the best ways to manage our 

27 

TSA systems and get our flyers through the airport safely and on 

time. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Mr. Higgins. 

I would like to take the opportunity, since we don’t have many 

other people questioning today, just to do another around of questions. I want to speak to Mr. Council and Ms. Olivier, in particular. 

In advance of the question, I encourage both of you to speak 

frankly because we can’t improve the ITF unless we have frank discussions. So given the fact that getting the technology to—from a 

testing phase to an operational phase is so critically important, especially given the emerging threats, which are pretty evident from 

what happened with—in overseas airports, where we had—people 

can’t even bring laptops on planes. The bad guys are constantly 

evolving the threat matrix and we need to respond in a more efficient and prompt manner. 

So with that as a backdrop I ask you, what else should we be 

doing with the ITF to make them better, make it more efficient? 

Mr. COUNCIL. So I think some of the things that you mentioned, 

which is the biometric screening, you know, as well as the C.T. 

scans, you know, they seem to have actually worked. You know, 

there is a lot of new technology that is more international in its 

concept, OK, that we don’t deploy here. 

So for the most part, you know, as we have communicated with 

TSA, we are in favor of actually being a test bed for anything that 

seems to be a new opportunity to us better protect the passengers 

that we have that is coming through. You know, and at any point 

we are to be willing to actually talk to them about what is needed 

to actually get that done. 

I think they have been very gracious on a lot of occasions because of the amount of traffic that we have. You know, so I, you 

know, I just think that from what I can see—I can only talk about 

the things that have been introduced to us, which is trying to do 

things that would allow us to try to protect people before they get 

to the checkpoints, all right, you know, and that is always the most 

serious part for us, you know, that white space that we talk about 

between the front door when you get out of your car on the curb 

and you get to the checkpoint is the thing that actually—that is 

what our focus is when it comes to security, and trying to make 

sure those people can get to the secured side of the airport, which 

is behind TSA, you know? 

So, you know, I mean, any effort that actually allows us to be 

able to do that—and we have taken steps ourselves, you know, to 

ensure that. You know, we have been hyper-vigilant when it comes 

to that area and trying to protect that area, you know, and we constantly—it is always—we are always on the lookout for things that 

can come about that can give us new ideas in terms of how we can 

respond quickly, how we can identify, and how we can prevent. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Mr. Council. 

Ms. Olivier. 

Ms. OLIVIER. I wish I had said all that. 

But I will give you a couple other things that I would love to see 

the task force work on, certainly the continuing algorithms. They 

need to be able to adapt algorithms very quickly, and I know that 

28 

they are adding new ones at these innovation lanes, but we need 

to take a look at how quickly they could adapt algorithms throughout the country even in the legacy installations when we pick up 

that there is a new threat. 

So we also need to continue to look at the human factor element 

on the part of the screeners. There is a lot that goes on at these 

screening checkpoints, and how can we understand a way to be 

able to allow those screeners to maximize their acuity in picking 

up issues in baggage and to minimize distractions in what can be 

a very busy environment. 

Beyond that, I would like to see the innovation lane focus expanded out a bit to a distance detection, because when people come 

in through the front doors, to the extent that you have a stand-off 

detection of somebody with explosives on them—and Mr. Higgins’ 

dogs would help with that, but they are in short supply. But other 

technology that gives you some stand-off detection would help you 

dealing with the threat in the public spaces even before people get 

to the checkpoint, so that is also pretty critical. I would like to see 

some work in that area. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you. 

I just want one last question, and I am going to switch gears 

here considerably so I won’t have to do another round of questions, 

and that is for Mr. Council. 

We had a discussion yesterday before you came in about what 

Atlanta is doing with respect to screening of all employees. If you 

could briefly summarize for everyone what that is I would appreciate it, because that is going to be a narrative that is going to be 

examined going forward. 

We just had an access controls bill passed out of the House this 

week, and it is going to mandate that an analysis be done about 

screening all employees—or potential for screening all employees at 

airports Nation-wide. I know the hue and cry is going to be, ‘‘It 

can’t be done.’’ Well, you are the largest airport in the country, one 

of the largest in the world. Please tell everyone what you are doing 

with respect to screening employees. 

Mr. COUNCIL. I can, Mr. Chairman. 

So basically right now at Hartsfield-Jackson we are doing a full 

screening and inspection for all of our employees, especially those 

that have SIDA access, and SIDA is security identification area, 

which is those people that actually can get out on the airfield and 

have access to planes. 

So right now we have been very fortunate that all of the stakeholders that would have a role in this have agreed to be willing 

participants in this screening process. That includes the airlines; it 

includes concessionaires, and all of the people that make up the 

whole eco-chain within the airport. 

So currently every airline except Delta, who is our major hub 

carrier, comes through four screening locations that we have at our 

airport, OK? Those that are Delta employees who have that—Delta 

actually has a screening process on their secure lot. 

When you get to their secure lot it takes a SIDA badge to get 

into that lot, and once they get onto that lot then they are also 

screened before they get on the buses that will take them to the 

airfield. That screening involves checking of their bags, some of the 

29 

explosive trace detection, the swabs as well as some of the hand 

wands. 

But once those employees are actually checked then they are led 

to a sterile environment to where there cannot be any kind of outside influence on those employees before they get on the bus. That 

sterile area is actually manned by security guards. 

So once they get on the bus and make their way up toward the 

airfield, before they get into the airfield then there is another stop 

that is there and there is another possibility for a random search 

there by VIPR and other security personnel that will again ensure 

that everybody that is on that bus, you know, has, to the most part, 

been screened. So that is very important for us. 

But for non-Delta employees, all other employees—— 

Mr. KATKO. Let me interrupt you, just before you get to nonDelta. 

Mr. COUNCIL. Sure. 

Mr. KATKO. But the bus does go and they bring them into the 

airport and they go directly into a secure area so they don’t get released to the public before they go into the airport, correct? 

Mr. COUNCIL. That is exactly correct. 

Mr. KATKO. OK. All right. 

Mr. COUNCIL. Yes. Yes. That is a very good point, sir. 

So all other airport employees actually go through four of the 

screening locations that we have, and those screening locations include metal detector, X-ray machines, explosive trace, as well as 

hand wands. They will also get pat-downs if there is an alarm or 

alert that is actually hit once they go through the machines. 

So we have started this process now and we are probably in our 

second year. The good thing, in terms of what Delta is doing, is by 

the end of this year they will also be installing the metal detectors 

and the X-ray machines. 

So, so far it has been working for us. The stakeholders have been 

very diligent in their efforts, and we feel that it has made a big 

difference at Hartsfield-Jackson. 

Mr. KATKO. We could go on and on, but I want to commend you 

for doing that. If the world’s largest airport can do it and the costs 

associated with it can somehow be absorbed—I know Delta is paying for their own screening and I know it is a substantial sum of 

money, but they—you can’t put a value on safety. 

When you are plugging a security gap as big as this one, the way 

you are doing it in an effective manner, I just want to say for the 

record we very much applaud it and we appreciate it, and the committee appreciates and applauds your efforts, so thank you very 

much. 

Mr. COUNCIL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KATKO. With that, the Chair now recognizes Mrs. Watson 

Coleman for questions. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

I just really am prompted to ask one question, and this has to 

do with the Fort Lauderdale situation, where a person picked up 

his baggage, which contained his gun, and then had his ammunition separated, and then he goes into the bathroom, and then he 

comes out and you know what happens. So my question is, I know 

that has got to be something that you all are thinking about or reVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17TP0427\17TP0427.TXT HEATH
30 

acting to, and I just wanted to know what you all are doing in that 

space. 

Mr. COUNCIL. So for us, yes, that situation—and it is amazing 

that that situation in itself has not happened before it actually 

happened. You know, but that is the challenge as an airport that 

we have, managing, you know, what happens in that non-secure 

space. 

You know, for us prevention is always what we try to work on, 

but it is also how quickly we can respond and what mitigation 

plans we have to put in place as soon as we can when something 

like that actually happens, you know. This is something that we 

train on. You know, we train judiciously to try to react and to try 

to make sure that we move those people that could be affected, you 

know, in a very safe way and get out of harm’s way. 

But to be quite frank with you, it is very difficult to prevent, you 

know, so that is why we spend so much time in trying to recognize 

behavior. We have people that are plainclothesmen that literally 

look at behavior of passengers, you know, and try to detect and try 

to pick up, you know, nuances that could lead us to think that this 

is someone that we need to watch. 

But the majority of our efforts, in addition to that, is really 

around, how do we mitigate and respond as quickly as we can to 

an event to try to minimize it? 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. You all have plain-clothes security. 

Mr. COUNCIL. Yes—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Are they armed? 

Mr. COUNCIL. I believe they are. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. OK. 

Mr. COUNCIL. Yes, they are. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Ms. Olivier? 

Ms. OLIVIER. Yes, Congressman. 

The Port Authority has actually written to the administrator of 

the—the acting administrator of the TSA about this, making several suggestions certainly that include separating the checking of 

these weapons and when it comes time to receive them that they 

be received in a different area from the baggage area where other 

baggage is, and that, in fact, the airlines be required to notify the 

receiving airport that they are shipping through weaponry so that 

the airport can make a decision on whether it should deploy its police, its armed LEOs, to the point where those weapons are reclaimed. 

Also, as I think you are sensitive in our region, we are very concerned throughout our region about guns and the access to guns in 

our New York-New Jersey area. Often we find that passengers who 

are resident in another State, another locale, licensed to carry the 

guns, are unaware of the local laws. If you are not licensed to carry 

a gun in New York City, for example, when you arrive and you, you 

know, unwrap your gun, you are not allowed to be carrying that 

alone unless you have a local license, and you are potentially subject to arrest. 

We feel that the airlines, understanding that they are checking 

a weapon and understanding what the destination of this passenger is, should give advanced warning to those passengers that, 

‘‘Wait a minute, if you are not licensed to carry you probably 

31 

should not be bringing this to New York.’’ So we urge that some 

action be taken in that regard to require airlines to deliver those 

messages, as well. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Could I ask that the copy of those suggestions be sent to us so that we might look at them? 

Ms. OLIVIER. We will do so. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KATKO. Yes. I was just going to ask the same thing, for sure. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Higgins for any further questions 

he may have. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Karoly, regarding the technology for smart lanes, I am seeing on this handout that there are five models for smart lanes. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. KAROLY. Yes, sir. There are five manufacturers and then 

there is the integration of both a Smiths and a Rapiscan X-ray, so 

there are virtually 10 different configurations from five manufacturers. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Have all five of these models been deployed at the 

testing airports, at the pilot airports? 

Mr. KAROLY. Right now, sir, the only deployed model is the MacDonald Humfrey and Rapiscan. 

Mr. HIGGINS. That is the model that, Mr. Council, you have in 

your airport, is the MacDonald Humfrey? 

Mr. COUNCIL. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Perhaps I missed that in earlier testimony. If I did 

I apologize. 

Is there intention as you expand the program, sir, to deploy the 

other four models, whereby they might be measured for their efficiency and effectiveness? 

Mr. KAROLY. Yes, sir. That is the plan, working with our stakeholders. We just approved the Vanderlande and Rapiscan system, 

so that is a system that is available to airports and airlines; and 

we just approved the Scarabee Smiths system for the same thing. 

We are still going through—undergoing testing with the two remaining systems, but once that is complete that will be available 

for other airlines and airports to deploy. 

Mr. HIGGINS. OK. 

Regarding, Mr. Council, you—it was very encouraging to hear 

the screening that is taking place for the employees, airport employees, at your airport, so that is a question I had posed to some 

ladies and gentlemen that testified before this committee some 

month or so ago. It is very encouraging to hear that. 

But how would we balance that against airports that do not have 

screening access like that and procedures in place, given the fact 

that the airplane itself that we are trying to assure that that aircraft has not had a weapon, say, planted on it somewhere by some 

employee—that is the reason we are screening our employees, 

right? 

So how can we balance that against the fact that other airports 

do not have such stringent—or some other airports, perhaps— 

where that plane that comes to your airport is not—has come from 

an airport that has—does not have that screening for their employees? 

32 

So how do we balance that, and how would this committee move 

forward with recommendations for TSA to correct that? 

Mr. COUNCIL. So I think that basically the whole notion of employee screening has to be just more pervasive through other airports. 

Mr. HIGGINS. No doubt. 

Mr. COUNCIL. Yes. That literally has to be where we start. 

You know, I think that the job that we feel like that we have 

done, you know, in all cases we are trying to deter, you know, we 

are trying to prevent, you know, anything that could actually happen. One of the issues that we had that kicked all of this off was 

the transport of weapons that was found from an employee at 

Hartsfield-Jackson, you know, and we soon learned that there 

was—that was something that was part of something larger and 

stuff. 

So that incident itself has put us in the position where we are 

now, to where we try to scrutinize our employees a whole lot better 

than that. 

In terms of any guns that are coming in, you know, it just depends on how they come in. You know, and if it is part of somebody’s checked baggage—that incident that happened in Fort Lauderdale—again, it is really tough to try to prevent. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Right. It would be more speaking of, like, intentional planting of a weapon by an employee. 

If I could shift this question to Mr. Karoly, would you be the gentleman that is receiving incoming new technologies? For instance, 

here are several technologies here that are as yet untested. Is there 

any pending technology that would be deployed to test arriving aircraft, the aircraft themselves, that would potentially detect within 

the passenger compartments of the aircraft some potential threat 

like a planted handgun? 

Mr. KAROLY. Sir, we are not working in that area today. We do 

have a broad agency announcement that we will be releasing, our 

second one, in a couple weeks, and with that broad agency announcement it asks for state-of-the-art we will say technologies, 

process changes, to better secure the transportation environment, 

if you will. So—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. That would include the aircraft itself? 

Mr. KAROLY. It could include the aircraft if somebody proposed 

that information, sir. Yes, sir, but we are not doing it today. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Thank you all for testifying today. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Mr. Higgins. 

I would like to thank all of the three witnesses here today for 

their testimony. It was excellent. We covered a wide range of topics 

and really very thought-provoking subject matter came up for us, 

so I appreciate it. 

I want to really reiterate that the primary goal, in my mind, of 

the ITF is to give them the tools necessary to expand their operations so that more and better technology can be tested on a more 

expedited manner and so we can get the good ideas on the front 

lines to keep our country protected as emerging threats—and everVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17TP0427\17TP0427.TXT HEATH
33 

evolving emerging threats, as we know—from the bad guys can be 

properly detected and thwarted. 

So that is the goal of this hearing. That is the goal of our inquiry 

going forward. 

So, Mr. Karoly, if you could get us a response by May 5 to the 

inquiry we made to you on the record I would very much appreciate that. 

I would like to thank everyone else and my fellow committee 

Members here for their excellent questions. 

We may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we will 

ask you to respond to these in writing. 

Pursuant to committee rule VII(D), the hearing record will be 

open for 10 days. 

Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN JOHN KATKO FOR STEVE KAROLY

Question 1. How has the Innovation Task Force sought to improve the way TSA 

develops, tests, and deploys new technologies into the field? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. What changes, if any, should be made to the relationship between 

DHS S&T and TSA in regards to how we procure and field new technologies? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. Is there a way to better collaborate on developing capabilities similar 

to the creation of the DHS Joint Requirements Council, which was created to help 

unify procurement requirements across individual DHS components? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. How does the Innovation Task Force inform the development of the 

mandatory Five-Year Strategic Technology Investment Plan? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4. What is TSA doing to assess the impact new technologies like the 

Automated Screening Lanes will have on the current staffing allocation model? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5a. Last year, TSA screened over 738 million passengers of which nearly 

97 million were international departures from the top 20 airports in the United 

States. For those foreign visitors departing the United States, State and CBP has 

already collected their biometrics and completed a fair amount of vetting prior to 

their entry into the United States. 

Given the vetting conducted by State and CBP prior to entry, is it possible to leverage that information gathering, vetting, link analysis, and move those foreign 

visitors into a known traveler lane? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5b. Would you give us an update on what conversations you have had 

with CBP in this regard? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6. In what ways would you say the Innovation Task Force has impacted 

the way in which TSA approaches technology solutions at the passenger screening 

process? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 7a. Now and in the future, is the ITF planned to be a ‘‘checkpoint of 

the future’’ to simply demonstrate mature and pre-mature technologies and impress/ 

urge the public/airports/airlines? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 7b. Or is ITF designed to quickly integrate new, needed technologies, 

gather critical OT experience and data, and be able to fast-track those capabilities 

into airports? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 8a. ITF emerged out of a process engineering issue in wait times. 

How does that ‘‘priority’’ fit into the other TSA priorities of cyber, HME, employee 

screening, liquid explosives, etc.? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 8b. How does the ITF advance a priority in concert with the existing 

TSA technology prioritization, security vulnerability, and testing goals? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 8c. Has ITF identified its priorities or is everything a priority? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 9a. A well-defined procurement path or airport security requirement has 

to be aligned with the ITF for technology companies large and small to meaningfully 

participate. 

How does the ITF work align with development of the Five-Year Acquisition Plan? 

36 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 9b. If not, why not? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 10. The ITF has potential value, however, if the demonstrated technologies are then sent to the TSIF potentially, upstaging long-standing T&E activities, makes existing manpower and resourcing problem worse. 

What personnel and resourcing is TSA devoting to this effort without diluting existing and vital requirement development, equipment testing, and evaluation? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 11. If ITF in no way reduces the time it takes to develop requirements 

and get technology to the checkpoint either with airport or TSA dollars and perhaps 

worse, disrupts installation of needed upgrades and replacement of existing technologies then it’s been a colossal waste of effort. 

How will TSA be able to reduce the time it takes to get technology deployed using 

the ITF process? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 12. Innovation lane-approved projects have included CT scanners, biometrics, mobile ETDs and airport staffing models. However, what’s not clear is what 

is the resourcing to bring these solutions to bear. 

What does TSA need in terms of funding the ITF to be able to test multiple technologies, collect operational data, and write requirements documents? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 13. What feedback have you received from front-line Transportation Security Officers who are working at the various innovation lanes in place at airports 

across the country? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 14. Does TSA have a plan to institutionalize the Task Force or attempt 

to connect its findings into existing programs and offices at TSA? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 15a. Has the ITF demonstrated any new technologies at surface transportation hubs? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 15b. If no, why not? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 16. How can TSA and DHS S&T work together better when it comes to 

developing not only joint requirements, but capabilities as well? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 17. How do you believe TSA as an agency can be better structured to 

support innovation when it comes to screening technologies? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER WATSON COLEMAN FOR STEVE KAROLY

Question 1a. How many small-to-medium businesses participate in the ITF? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. How is TSA working to keep the small-to-medium businesses engaged and contributing to new passenger screening technologies? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. What has the Innovation Task Force accomplished since the initial 

stand-up in spring of 2016? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3a. What is the long-term plan for the Innovation Task Force going forward? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3b. Where does the Innovation Task Force fall in the priorities for TSA? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4a. What has TSA’s outreach to the flying public about changes in 

screening procedures been? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4b. What are the long-term plans for letting the flying public know what 

to expect in the screening changes that will be coming to their airports? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5. With the roll-out of the demonstrations and communicating with passengers, how is TSA taking into account persons with disabilities or those who 

speak different languages and how the new technologies might impact their travel? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

37 

Question 6a. In the past, TSA has rolled out technology that was controversial. 

When the first generation advanced imaging technology machines were rolled out 

there was mass confusion and concerns about the review process for the devices. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6b. How has the Task Force improved TSA’s review products before putting them through to demonstrations? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 7. What is the Task Force’s interaction with the Aviation Security Advisory Committee? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 8. The Task Force seems as if it has been a solid example to public and 

private sectors partnering to make a positive impact. 

What resources or assistance do you think the Task Force needs from the private 

sector to continue to help build on the work that has been completed thus far? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 9. Please describe the interplay between the Task Force, the Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL) and TSA Systems Integration Facility (TSIF). 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 10. How does the Task Force prioritize technologies? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN JOHN KATKO FOR ROOSEVELT COUNCIL, JR. 

Question 1. What do you believe to be the primary takeaways from the innovation 

lanes in place at your airport? 

Answer. A primary takeaway from the project management aspect of installing 

the Automated Screening Lanes (ASLs) was the importance of putting in place the 

required electrical infrastructure ahead of the ASL installation. Setting up the infrastructure in advance saved time and minimized the duration of out-of-service equipment. From an operational aspect, the primary takeaway is that compared with a 

standard lane, an ASL increases passenger throughput by as much as 30 percent. 

As passenger growth in originating traffic continues to climb, the increased throughput helps our airport minimize lines and keep wait times at or below 20 minutes. 

Question 2. What are the primary challenges to implementing new screening technologies at airports, such as automated screening lanes? 

Answer. Aside from funding, the primary challenge of implementing a new technology, especially one that interfaces with the traveling public, is the passenger’s 

adjustment to the new process. In the case of ASLs, even PreCheck travelers and 

other frequent fliers have faced a learning curve with the new process. With standard screening lanes, for instance, only certain items needed to be placed in a bin. 

The ASL, on the other hand, requires all items be placed in a bin. At this point, 

familiarization and constant communication with the traveling public are the only 

solutions. Of course, all airports may not install the same technologies, leading to 

possible uncertainty and confusion as the traveling public navigates different processes. Another major challenge is available checkpoint floor area. ASLs and other 

technologies can require a larger footprint, forcing some area-constrained checkpoints to make major building modifications to install these new technologies. 

Question 3. Do you think that the TSA’s Innovation Task Force (ITF) is well-positioned to implement solutions from findings derived from the innovation lanes at 

your airport? 

Answer. Yes, we are confident that ITF is well-positioned to implement solutions 

based on findings from the innovation lanes. Since the first ASL installation 1 year 

ago, the city of Atlanta, the Transportation Security Administration and our airline 

partners have worked with the task force to test several process improvements. 

Such improvements include dual AIT screening, cross-lane screening and remote 

screening. We believe testing these new initiatives at the world’s busiest airport 

gives ITF the information needed to implement changes at other large airports Nation-wide. 

Question 4. What are airports doing to support technology innovation at TSA and 

how do you perceive the relationship on this front between stakeholders and the 

agency? 

Answer. We are pleased to report that the relationship between the city of Atlanta, our partner airlines, and TSA has always been—and remains—strong. We 

pride ourselves in supporting TSA’s technology initiatives. We recently provided design support, added capacity to our electrical infrastructure, and constructed additional facilities for TSA to conduct a remote screening room pilot program. 

Question 5. What insight do you have into how TSA develops, procures, and deploys new technologies at airports? How can this process be made more effective? 

38 

Answer. As an airport, we have little insight into how TSA develops and procures 

technology. It is our understanding that ITF brings new technologies to airports and 

its stakeholders for consideration. Stakeholders then decide which technologies to 

test. In terms of deployment, once new technologies are tested and approved, the 

airport is heavily involved in the process. 

Question 6. What solutions do you believe TSA should focus on in the mediumand long-term to usher in a new era of security screening at airports? 

Answer. In the mid-term, TSA should continue to advance automation using biometrics in passenger screening and find ways to automate oversized baggage screening. As more airlines and companies such as Clear continue to test and implement 

biometrics for passenger check-in, we should expect that this service would eventually be tested as part of the passenger screening process. 

In the long term, one focus should be to improve exit lane technologies. Currently, 

few options exist for automation of passenger exiting from secured to unsecured 

areas of the airport. Our exit lanes are staffed 24/7 and several are ADA-challenged. 

Finding an exit lane technology that reduces the required staffing while improving 

overall airport security would be beneficial. 

Question 7a. Based on the experience of your airport, how well is TSA positioned 

as an agency to spur innovation at the checkpoint? 

Answer. All stakeholders share in the responsibility of spurring innovation, but 

the airport does not see TSA’s role to encourage such innovation. Instead, we believe 

TSA should focus its efforts on ensuring that any innovation being introduced can 

enhance security and improve efficiencies. 

Question 7b. What role and responsibility should stakeholders have in regards to 

such innovation? 

Answer. All stakeholders have a role to play when it comes to innovation. Airlines 

continue to improve efficiencies and enhance customer service—all while lowering 

costs. In finding those efficiencies, airlines provide recommendations on what new 

technologies may offer the best passenger experience. An airport’s role and responsibility should be to provide assistance and support with facility needs. Such was the 

case with the ASLs, as the airport assisted the TSA with infrastructure and facility 

needs. 

Question 8a. Do you believe that the Innovation Task Force has been focusing on 

the aspects of security technology that are most in need of attention? 

Answer. Yes. Based on recent terror attacks on public airports and long checkpoint lines experienced last year, we believe the Innovation Task Force has focused 

on the current needs of passenger screening. 

Question 8b. Are there other areas of the airport, such as checked baggage, in 

which technology needs to be improved but has not been a focus of the ITF? 

Answer. Yes, past deficiencies of the inline baggage system are being corrected 

with the EDS recapitalization program. This program will bring improvements in 

baggage scanning technology and the overall inline baggage system. However, we 

still need to improve baggage screening technologies to reduce alarm rates on liquids, gels, and aerosols. Such equipment improvements are necessary to increase 

the accuracy of inspections while decreasing overall time of a bag in the system. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN MICHAEL T. MCCAUL FOR JEANNE M. OLIVIER

Question 1. What do you believe to be the primary takeaways from the innovation 

lanes in place at your airport? 

Answer. The innovation lanes are a success in moving passengers faster through 

the screening queues and may reduce traveler frustration at delays from passengers 

who are unfamiliar with screening routines. The new lanes provide for several passengers to divest and load screening bins simultaneously, which means that the line 

is not held up by a single traveler. However, this benefit will only materialize as 

passengers become familiar with the new equipment and procedures. In other 

words, there is a learning curve. It appears that TSA staffing will still be required 

at the current levels for the checkpoints, but wait times may be reduced with improved throughput. 

Question 2. What are the primary challenges to implementing new screening technologies at airports, such as automated screening lanes? 

Answer. Funding for the lane equipment and space for the equipment will be key 

challenges for implementation of the new automated screening lanes, and funding 

would remain a primary challenge for implementing any other new screening technology. Another challenge has been passenger acceptance and behavior. Reconfiguration of the space and relocation of CCTV camera equipment etc. are additional 

considerations. 

39 

Question 3. Do you think that TSA’s Innovation Task force is well-positioned to 

implement solutions from findings derived from the innovation lanes at your airport? 

Answer. The innovation lanes are a successful effort at Newark Liberty International Airport. We understand that TSA has collected data on staffing, configuration, and threat resolution scenarios, however those data findings have not yet been 

shared with us as the airport operator. 

Question 4. What are airports doing to support technology innovation at TSA and 

how do you perceive the relationship on this front between stakeholders and the 

agency? 

Answer. We and other airports vigorously support TSA innovation and the TSA’s 

Innovation Task Force, and believe TSA is on the right path in this regard. Some 

airports and airline tenant partners have already paid for pilots of technology innovation. A number of our colleague airports have volunteered to serve as pilot centers 

for TSA innovation efforts. We hope that airports will have an even greater role in 

the checkpoint improvements including those airports that lack financial resources 

to fund the efforts. 

Question 5. What insight do you have into how TSA develops, procures, and deploys new technologies at airports? How can this process be made more effective? 

Answer. We have very little insight into how TSA develops, procures, and deploys 

new technologies at airports. It is our impression that the Federal procurement 

process is very burdensome and thereby limits the TSA’s agility and piloting of new 

technology. 

Question 6. What solutions do you believe TSA should focus on in the mediumand long-term to usher in a new era of security screening at airports? 

Answer. In the short run, the TSA PreCheck program helps speed passengers effectively through screening and is an important component of the checkpoint operation. It needs to be greatly expanded through private sector and industry enrollment options. In the longer term, technology enhancements that allow passengers 

to pass through the checkpoint without stopping, taking off shoes, removing laptops 

from bags, or carrying beverages and food while at the same time improving security and detection are important. 

Question 7. Based on the experience of your airport, how well is TSA positioned 

as an agency to spur innovation at the checkpoint? What role and responsibility 

should stakeholders have in regards to such innovation? 

Answer. We are encouraged by the formation of the Innovation Task Force. It is 

a step in the right direction. It needs to be sustained with permanent funding and 

adequate staffing. It needs to ensure an on-going vehicle for product and service providers to offer and demonstrate their innovative products and provide demonstration 

pilots for a wide breadth of such products. 

The checkpoint and the screening of passengers and their baggage is and should 

be the sole responsibility of the TSA. That said, we recognize that airports and terminal operators, and airlines can and have volunteered to support innovation and 

adaptation to address specific facility needs or enhance the customer experience. It 

is critical that airports be involved early on in any TSA innovation plans. TSA, as 

with any Federal agency, is burdened by limited funding and very constrained procurement processes. 

Question 8. Do you believe that the Innovation Task Force has been focusing on 

the aspects of security technology that are most in need of attention? 

Are there other areas of the airport—such as checked baggage—where technology 

needs to be improved but has not been a focus of the ITF? 

Answer. The Innovation Task Force is a small staff of 24 with no dedicated funding and therefore efforts that require longer continuity may be impeded. The Task 

Force addressed the ‘‘low-hanging fruit’’ of screening efficiency and passenger 

throughput through the introduction of new lanes. What will be far more challenging is the development and introduction of more effective screening equipment 

such as the CT machines for the checkpoint, and other methods of detection of 

harmful liquids, and artfully concealed explosives. Certainly there are many areas 

warranting improved technology for security beyond the checkpoints at our airports, 

including such things as effective CCTV tracking of individuals throughout a terminal, monitoring for gun shots, and further work regarding explosive detection in 

public spaces. 

Æ