Aviation Security: Progress Made, but Challenges Persist in Meeting the Screening Mandate for Air Cargo
Released: 2011-03-09T00:00:00

Letter

TSA Reports that It Met the Screening Mandate as It Applies to Domestic Cargo, but Previously Identified Data Limitations and Other Challenges Persist

TSA took several actions to address the 9/11 Commission Act mandate to screen 100 percent of air cargo as it applies to domestic cargo transported on passenger aircraft by August 2010. As of August 2010, TSA reported that it met the 9/11 Commission Act mandate to screen 100 percent of air cargo as it applies to domestic cargo, although in June 2010 we reported that TSA lacked a mechanism to verify the accuracy of the data used to make this determination.

To help meet the mandate, TSA took several actions, among them: TSA created a voluntary program to facilitate screening throughout the air cargo supply chain. Since TSA concluded that relying solely on air carriers to conduct screening would result in significant cargo backlogs and flight delays, TSA created the voluntary Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) to allow screening to take place earlier in the shipping process, prior to delivering the cargo to the air carrier. Under the CCSP, facilities at various points in the air cargo supply chain, such as shippers, manufacturers, warehousing entities, distributors, third-party logistics companies, and freight forwarders that are located in the United States, may voluntarily apply to TSA to become certified cargo screening facilities (CCSF). TSA initiated the CCSP at 18 U.S. airports that process high volumes of air cargo, and then expanded the program to all U.S. airports in early 2009.

TSA is taking steps to test technologies for screening air cargo. To test select screening technologies among CCSFs, TSA created the Air Cargo Screening Technology Pilot in January 2008, and selected some of the nation’s largest freight forwarders to use these technologies and report on their experiences. In a separate effort, in July 2009, DHS’s Directorate for Science and Technology completed the Air Cargo Explosives Detection Pilot Program that tested the performance of select baggage screening technologies for use in screening air cargo at three U.S. airports. In March 2009, TSA initiated a qualification process to test these and other technologies for air carriers and CCSP participants to use in meeting the screening mandate against TSA technical requirements. In December 2009, TSA issued to air carriers and CCSFs its first list of qualified technologies which included X-ray and explosives detection systems (EDS) models that the agency approved for screening air cargo under the 9/11 Commission Act. Over the past several years, TSA has evaluated and qualified additional technologies and has issued subsequent lists, most recently in February 2011. These technologies were in addition to the canine and physical search screening methods permitted by TSA.

TSA expanded its explosives detection canine program. As of February 2011, TSA officials stated that the agency had 113 dedicated air cargo screening canine teams—operating in 20 airports—and was in the process of adding 7 additional canine teams. TSA headquarters officials explained that two CCSFs are participating in a pilot program to test the feasibility of using private canine teams—that meet TSA standards—to inspect air cargo. Officials stated that the pilot is expected to continue through summer 2011.

Even with these actions, TSA continues to face challenges that, among other things, could limit the agency’s ability to provide reasonable assurance that screening is being conducted at reported levels. Among the challenges and recommendations previously identified in our June 2010 report are the following.

Reported screening data. TSA does not have a mechanism to verify screening data—which are self-reported by industry representatives. In our June 2010 report, we recommended that TSA develop a mechanism to verify the accuracy of all screening data through random checks or other practical means. TSA partially concurred with our recommendation, and stated that verifying the accuracy of domestic screening data will continue to be a challenge because there is no means to cross-reference local screening logs—which include screening information on specific shipments—with screening reports submitted by air carriers to TSA that do not contain such information. Given that the agency uses these data to report to Congress its compliance with the screening mandate as it applies to domestic cargo, we continue to believe that verifying the accuracy of the screening data is important so that TSA will be better positioned to provide reasonable assurance that screening is being conducted at reported levels.

Screening technology. TSA has not approved or qualified any equipment to screen cargo transported on unit-load device (ULD) pallets or containers—both of which are common means of transporting air cargo on wide-body passenger aircraft—both domestic and inbound aircraft. Cargo transported on wide-body passenger aircraft makes up 76 percent of domestic air cargo shipments transported on passenger aircraft. The maximum size cargo configuration that may be screened is a 48-by-48-by-65-inch skid— much smaller than the large pallets that are typically transported on wide-body passenger aircraft. Prior to May 1, 2010, canine screening was the only screening method, other than physical search, approved by TSA to screen such cargo configurations. However, effective May 1, 2010, the agency no longer allows canine teams to screen ULD pallets and containers given TSA concerns about the effectiveness of this screening method for those cargo configurations. In addition, TSA is working to complete qualification testing of additional air cargo screening technologies; thus, until all stages of qualification testing are concluded, the agency may not have reasonable assurance that the technologies that air carriers and program participants are currently allowed to use to screen air cargo are effective. TSA is conducting qualification testing to determine which screening technologies are effective at the same time that air carriers are using these technologies to meet the mandated requirement to screen air cargo transported on passenger aircraft. While we recognize that certain circumstances, such as mandated deadlines, require expedited deployment of technologies, our prior work has shown that programs with immature technologies have experienced significant cost and schedule growth.

Inspection resources. As we reported in June 2010, for domestic air cargo, TSA amended its inspections plan to include inspections of CCSP participants, but the agency had not completed its staffing study to determine how many inspectors will be necessary to provide oversight of the additional program participants that would support the screening mandate. In our June 2010 report, we recommended that TSA create milestones to help ensure completion of the staffing study. TSA concurred and stated that as part of the staffing study, the agency is working to develop a model to identify the number of required transportation security inspectors and that this effort would be completed in the fall of 2010. As of February 2011, TSA officials stated that the study was in the final stages of review.

TSA Has Taken Steps to Enhance the Security of Inbound Air Cargo, but Previously Identified Screening Data Limitations and Other Challenges Persist

TSA has taken a number of steps to enhance the security of inbound air cargo, as discussed below.

TSA moved its deadline for meeting the 100 percent screening mandate as it applies to inbound air cargo. TSA officials stated that they plan to meet the 9/11 Commission Act mandate as it applies to inbound air cargo transported on passenger aircraft by December 2011—2 years earlier than the TSA administrator reported to Congress in November 2010. According to TSA officials, the agency determined it was feasible to require air carriers to meet a December 2011 screening deadline as a result of trends in carrier reported screening data and discussions with air cargo industry leaders regarding progress made by industry to secure inbound cargo on passenger aircraft.

Effective May 1, 2010, air carriers were required to submit inbound screening data to TSA. According to TSA officials, in analyzing this self- reported screening data, TSA found that carriers were screening a higher percentage of air cargo than TSA had initially estimated. For example, TSA previously estimated that 65 percent of inbound cargo by weight would be screened by August 2010. Based on data submitted to TSA by the air carriers, TSA officials stated that the agency estimates that about 80 percent of inbound cargo by weight was screened for the same time period. In addition to requiring air carriers to submit screening data to TSA, in May 2010, TSA also required air carriers to screen a certain percentage of shrink-wrapped and banded inbound cargo. TSA officials stated that in implementing this requirement, air carriers determined that it was more efficient to screen larger groupings of cargo at the point of origin, which resulted in more than the required percentage being screened. Therefore, according to TSA officials, continued progress made by industry will help TSA to meet its December 31, 2011, deadline to screen 100 percent of inbound passenger cargo.

TSA is working with foreign governments to draft international air cargo security standards and to harmonize standards with foreign partners. According to TSA officials, the agency has worked with foreign counterparts over the last 3 years to draft Amendment 12 to the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Annex 17, and to generate support for its adoption by ICAO members. The amendment, which was adopted by the ICAO Council in November 2010, will set forth new standards related to air cargo such as requiring members to establish a system to secure the air cargo supply chain (the flow of goods from manufacturers to retailers). TSA has also supported the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) efforts to establish a secure supply chain approach to screening cargo for its member airlines and to have these standards recognized internationally. Moreover, following the October 2010 bomb attempt in cargo originating in Yemen, DHS and TSA, among other things, reached out to international partners, IATA, and the international shipping industry to emphasize the global nature of transportation security threats and the need to strengthen air cargo security through enhanced screening and preventative measures. TSA also deployed a team of security inspectors to Yemen to provide that country’s government with assistance and guidance on their air cargo screening procedures.

In November 2010, TSA officials stated that the agency is coordinating with foreign countries to evaluate the comparability of their air cargo security requirements with those of the United States. According to TSA officials, the agency has developed a program, the National Cargo Security Program (NCSP), that would recognize the air cargo security programs of foreign countries if TSA deems those programs provide a level of security commensurate with TSA’s programs. TSA plans to coordinate with the top 20 air cargo volume countries, which, according to TSA officials, export about 90 percent of the air cargo transported to the United States on passenger aircraft. According to officials, TSA has completed a review of one country’s air cargo security program and has determined that its requirements are commensurate with those of the United States. TSA considers air carriers adhering to NCSP approved programs as being in compliance with TSA air cargo security requirements, according to TSA officials. As of February 2011, TSA continues to evaluate the comparability of air cargo security programs for several other countries. TSA officials stated that although the December 31, 2011, deadline to achieve 100 percent screening is independent of this effort, the agency plans to recognize as many commensurate programs as possible by the deadline.

TSA implemented additional security measures following the October 2010 Yemen air cargo bomb attempt. On November 8, 2010, DHS announced security measures in response to the Yemen incident. TSA banned cargo originating from Yemen and Somalia from transport into the United States; banned the transport of cargo deemed high risk on passenger aircraft; prohibited the transport of toner and ink cartridges weighing 16 ounces or more on passenger aircraft in carry-on and checked luggage; and required additional screening of high-risk cargo prior to transport on an all-cargo aircraft. In addition, TSA is working closely with CBP, industry and international partners to expedite the receipt of advanced cargo data for international flights to the United States prior to departure in order to more effectively identify and screen items based on risk and current intelligence. Further, in December 2010, TSA, CBP, and the air cargo industry launched a new joint technology pilot project referred to as the air cargo advance screening program to enhance the sharing of electronic shipping information to improve the identification of high-risk cargo. In February 2011, TSA officials stated that this effort is currently focused on all-cargo carriers and will expand to passenger carriers in the future.

Even with these steps to improve the security of inbound air cargo, as we previously reported in June 2010, TSA faces challenges that could hinder its ability to meet the 9/11 Commission Act screening mandate as it applies to inbound cargo.

TSA lacks a mechanism to verify data on screening conducted on inbound air cargo. As we reported in June 2010, questions exist about the reliability of TSA’s reported screening data for inbound cargo because TSA does not have a mechanism to verify the accuracy of the data reported by industry. In June 2010, we reported that TSA’s screening percentages were estimated based on screening requirements of certain countries and were not based on actual data collected from air carriers or other entities, such as foreign governments. In this report, we recommended that TSA develop a mechanism to verify the accuracy of all screening data through random checks or other practical means and obtain actual data on all inbound screening. TSA concurred in part with our recommendation and issued changes to air carriers’ standard security programs that required air carriers to report inbound cargo screening data to TSA. However, these requirements apply to air carriers and the screening that they conduct or that may be conducted by a foreign government, but does not reflect screening conducted by other entities throughout the air cargo supply chain. As of March 2011, TSA officials stated that current screening percentages are based on actual data reported by air carriers, but stated that it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the screening data reported by air carriers. Given that TSA now plans to meet the 9/11 Commission Act screening mandate as it applies to inbound air cargo by December 2011, it will be important for TSA to have complete and accurate data in hand to verify that this mandate is being met.

TSA has limited authority to regulate foreign governments or entities. TSA may require that foreign air carriers with operations to, from, or within the United States comply with any applicable requirements, including TSA-issued emergency amendments to air carrier security programs, but foreign countries, as sovereign nations, generally cannot be compelled to implement specific aviation security standards or mutually accept other countries’ security measures. International representatives have noted that national sovereignty concerns limit the influence the United States and its foreign partners can have in persuading any country to participate in international harmonization efforts, or make specific changes in their screening procedures. Thus, TSA authority abroad is generally limited to regulating air carrier operations, including the transport of cargo, into the United States. It has no other authority to require foreign governments or entities to, for example, screen a certain percentage of air cargo or screen cargo using specific procedures.

No technology is currently approved or qualified by TSA to screen cargo once it is loaded onto a unit-load device. As we noted earlier for domestic air cargo, TSA has not approved any equipment to screen cargo transported on unit-load device (ULD) pallets or containers—both of which are common means of transporting air cargo on wide-body passenger aircraft—on both domestic and inbound aircraft. As a result, questions remain about air carriers’ ability to effectively and efficiently screen air cargo bound for the United States. This is particularly important because, as we reported in June 2010, about 96 percent of inbound air cargo arrives on wide-body aircraft, and TSA has limited authority to oversee the screening activities of foreign governments or entities. We will be examining these issues as part of our ongoing review of TSA’s efforts to secure inbound air cargo for the House Committee on Homeland Security and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We plan to issue the final results later this year.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I look forward to answering any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

For questions about this statement, please contact Stephen M. Lord at (202) 512-4379 or lords@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony are Steve D. Morris, Assistant Director; Joel Aldape; Carissa Bryant; Labony Chakraborty; Tom Lombardi; Linda S. Miller; Rebecca Kuhlman Taylor; and Meg Ullengren.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.